UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
AT  LOS  ANGELES 


/ 

•V^M 

/J 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES     ?'* 
UNITED  STATES 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE 

ON  BILLS  HAYING  FOR  THEIR  OBJECT 
THE  ACQUISITION  OF  FOREST  AND 
OTHER  LANDS  FOR  THE  PROTEC- 
TION   OF   WATERSHEDS  AND 
CONSERVATION    OF    THE 
NAVIGABILITY  OF  NAVI- 
GABLE STREAMS 

ALSO  OTHER  PAPERS  BEARING 
ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECTS 


SIXTIETH  CONGRESS 
SECOND  SESSION 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1909 


1* 

A  ST) 


ACQUISITION  OF  FOREST  AND   OTHER   LANDS   FOR  THE 
PROTECTION  OF  WATERSHEDS,  ETC. 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 
Wednesday,  December  9, 1908. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Charles  F.  Scott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I  wish  to  say  that 
about  two  weeks  before  the  session  of  Congress  opened  I  was  re- 
quested to  grant  a  hearing  to  some  gentlemen  who  wished  to  appear 
here  in  the  interest  of  the  White  Mountain  and  Appalachian  forest 
project.  It  was  too  late,  then,  to  communicate  with  members  of  the 
committee  individually  and  hear  from  them,  and  I  therefore  took  the 
liberty 'of  calling  this  meeting,  taking  their  assent  for  granted,  and 
I  am  glad  to  note  the  presence  of  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
committee. 

I  understand  that  at  a  meeting  held  last  evening  of  those  who  are 
interested  in  this  matter  it  was  decided  to  ask  Governor  Guild,  of 
Massachusetts,  to  conduct  the  hearing.  Before  introducing  him, 
however,  I  wish  to  make  a  few  statements  touching  the  attitude  01 
the  committee  toward  this  measure,  which  may,  perhaps,  have  some- 
thing of  suggestion  in  them  to  those  who  are  to  speak. 

In  the  first  place,  I  wish  to  say  that  the  committee  is  fairly  well 
educated  on  the  general  proposition.  It  has  been  discussed  before 
us  at  considerable  length  and  by  very  able  gentlemen. 

In  the  second  place  the  opinion  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the 
House  seems  to  leave  this  committee  with  no  alternative  but  to  ex- 
clude from  consideration  any  question  of  the  purchase  of  forest  lands 
for  the  mere  purpose  of  preserving  the  forests.  Under  that  opinion 
we  can  only  consider  the  propriety  of  such  purchase  in  the  event  that 
a  direct  and  substantial  connection  can  be  shown  between  the  preser- 
vation of  the  forests  and  the  continued  maintenance  of  the  navigabil- 
ity of  navigable  streams.  Therefore,  what  I  think  the  comniittee 
desires  particularly  to  have  this  morning  is  facts  bearing  directly 
on  this  latter  proposition.  We  want  to  know,  if  any  of  the  gentle- 
men who  are  to  appear  before  us  are  prepared  to  state  it,  just  how 
much  difference  in  the  stream  flow  of  some  individual  navigable  river 
can  be  directly  attributed  to  the  deforestation  of  the  watershed  con- 
tributing to  that  stream.  I  think  we  would  like  to  know  if  there  is 
any  data  showing  the  record  of  streams  for  as  long  a  period  as  possi- 
ble, covering  a  period  when  the  forests  were  in  existence  and  since 
they  have  been  removed.  I  think  we  would  like  to  know  whether 

200045 


4  FOREST  LANDS  FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

the  erosion,  of  which  complaint  is  made  as  resulting  in  silting  up 
the  streams,  is  due  to  the  removal  of  forests  from  the  upper  slopes 
or  from  the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountains;  whether  it  is  due  to  the 
operations  of  farming  or  to  the  operations  of  lumbering.  And  I 
think  also  we  would  like  to  have  some  information,  if  it  is  possible, 
as  to  the  probable  price  at  which  land  can  be  bought  in  the  sections 
under  consideration,  and  about  the  number  of  acres  that  would  prob- 
ably be  required. 

In  making  these  suggestions  you  will  understand,  of  course,  Gov- 
ernor Guild,  that  I  am  not  seeking  to  dictate  what  the  gentlemen 
who  are  to  appear  before  us  shall  say.  I  am  merely  trying  to  indi- 
cate points  that  must  be  given  very  careful  consideration  by  the  com- 
mittee before  it  acts  upon  this  matter.  And  with  these  introductory 
remarks  I  take  pleasure  in  presenting  to  this  committee  Governor 
Guild,  the  distinguished  executive  of  Massachusetts,  by  whose  pres- 
ence here  this  morning  I  am  sure  we  all  feel  honored. 

STATEMENT  OF  CUETIS  GUILD,  JR.,  GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHU- 
SETTS. 

Governor  GUILD.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
I  am  sure  that  the  petitioners  in  behalf  of  this  measure  for  the  preser- 
vation of  the  Appalachian  forests  will  take  due  consideration  of  the 
kindly  suggestions  made  by  the  chairman  of  this  committee,  and  will, 
to  the  best  of  their  ability,  address  themselves  to  them.  I  note  the 
remarks  of  the  chairman,  that  the  committee  has  already  given  a 
number  of  hearings  in  regard  to  this  matter  and  has  posted  itself 
carefully  and  quite  thoroughly,  and  therefore  I  shall  ask,  to  use  the 
legal  parlance,  if  I  may  put  in  evidence  at  this  hearing,  without  read- 
ing, the  previous  proceedings  before  this  committee  with  the  testi- 
mony which  you  already  have? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Certainly,  that  will  be  entirely  satisfactory. 

Governor  GUILD.  That  is  understood.  I  would  also  like  to  put 
in  evidence  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  on  the  South- 
ern Appalachian  and  White  Mountain  watersheds,  which  does  give 
the  commercial  importance,  area,  condition,  feasibility  of  purchase 
for  national  forests,  and  the  probable  cost,  to  which  you  referred. 
Furthermore,  the  report  of  the  Conservation  Commission,  now  in 
session,  which  is  giving  particular  attention  to  the  very  practical 
points  that  the  honorable  chairman  has  suggested,  in  regard  to  the 
areas  and  to  the  specific  effect  of  the  destruction  of  the  forests. 
Finally,  I  take  it  that  you  do  not,  of  course,  desire,  as  1  understand, 
to  exclude  any  evidence  which  any  person  now  present  may  feel  de- 
sirous of  offering  as  to  any  deleterious  effect  that  may  come  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  from  the  destruction  of  our  forests. 
For  if  we  have  to  consider,  sir,  the  constitutionality  of  this  measure 
on  the  ground  as  to  whether  the  waters  of  the  river  are  thereby  ren- 
dered unnavigable  or  remain  navigable,  another  clause  of  the  Con- 
stitution, of  course,  provides  that  Congress  is  to  legislate  for  the 
general  welfare  of  the  people,  and  certainly  nothing  is  more  for  the 
general  welfare  of  the  people  than  the  preservation  of  a  good  water 
supply  and  a  watershed  for  rivers  that  furnish  water  for  the  use  of 
the  people,  whether  they  are  navigable  or  not. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  5 

This  movement,  sir,  I  need  scarcely  say,  is  not  of  a  sectional  or 
local  character.  The  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  address 
yesterday,  declared  that  the  one  specific  thing  that  must  be  done,  and 
done  now,  for  the  conservation  of  our  national  resources,  was  the 
passage  of  this  act  for  the  preservation  of  the  Appalachian  forests. 
He  even  publicly  advocated,  if  necessary,  the  issue  of  bonds  by  the 
United  States  for  that  purpose,  and  in  that  declaration  *he  was  sec- 
onded by  the  gentleman  who,  if  not  the  President-elect,  is  at  least  the 
President  elected,  Hon.  William  H.  Taft.  I  suppose  it  may  not  be 
out  of  place  for  me  to  call  the  attention  of  the  committee,  and  not  in 
any  spirit  of  controversy  and  not  in  any  sectional  spirit,  to  another 
fact.  The  city  of  Boston,  the  capital  of  the  Commonwealth  which  I 
have  the  honor  to  represent,  is  the  second  port  of  import  in  the  United 
States,  furnishing,  with  the  exception  of  New  York,  the  largest  rev- 
enue from  customs  to  the  United  States  Government.  New  England, 
Massachusetts,  is  delighted  to  have  the  National  Government  take  up 
national  development.  The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  though 
we  have  not  one  square  yard  of  arid  soil  which  needs  irrigation  in  our 
Commonwealth  and  have  made  no  petition  to  the  National  Govern- 
ment for  irrigation,  yet  sent  its  delegates  to  the  National  Irrigation 
Congress  in  New  Mexico,  to  show  that  the  New  England  States  and 
the  Atlantic  seaboard  are  quite  as  much  interested  in  providing  water 
for  the  arid  lands  in  the  West  as  we  are  in  providing  water  for  the 
mills  and  streams  in  the  East.  We  do  not  border  on  the  Mississippi 
Valley  or  on  the  Ohio  River,  but  we  are  heartily  in  accord  with  the 
movement  for  deeper  waterways  for  the  Central  West,  and  our  dele- 
gates have  taken  their  part  in  the  deliberations  for  that  great  purpose. 
We  shall  hope  to  show  you  here  to-day  that  the  interest  which  is  taken 
in  this  movement  and  the  support  for  it  do  not  come  alone  from  the 
sections  which  are  to  be  benefited.  The  support  for  it  comes  from  all 
over  the  United  States,  from  the  West  as  well  as  from  the  East,  from 
the  South  as  well  as  from  the  North,  and  I  take  particular  pleasure  ir 
calling  the  attention  of  this  committee  to  the  fact  that  I  believe  that 
this  is  the  first  occasion  where  the  governor  of  South  Carolina  and  the 
governor  of  Massachusetts,  have  appeared  hand  in  hand  together 
before  the  National  Congress  to  ask  for  something  for  the  common 
welfare  of  the  United  States.  [Applause.] 

The  effect  of  the  shortage  of  water  supply  caused  by  the  cutting 
of  the  trees  at  the  head  waters  of  the  streams  we  shall  try  to  show 
you  has  been  wide-reaching.  The  diminution  of  water  power  in- 
creases the  cost  of  production  to  our  manufacturers,  it  increases  the 
prices  of  our  products,  not  only  of  cotton  cloths,  but  particularly  of 
paper,  of  which  New  England,  as  you  know,  is  the  center.  It  has 
added  to  the  cost  of  the  production  of  garden  truck  and  the  products 
of  the  farm.  Finally,  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  you  that  lack  of 
attention  to  these  forests  and  the  consequent  low  water  in  the  streams 
has  materially  contributed  to  the  spread  of  disease.  The  water 
sinking  in  the  streams  causes  a  deposit  of  sewage  along  the  banks, 
and  from  that  springs  the  dread  plagues  of  typhoid  fever  and  diphthe- 
ria, and  certainly  it  is  for  the  general  welfare  to  prevent  the  death 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  pestilence  in  time  of  peace,  as  well 
as  preserving  the  equipment  of  soldiers  in  time  of  war. 

Something  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
various  Commonwealths  might  be  expected  to  cooperate  with  the 


6  FOEEST  LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

National  Government  if  this  new  movement  is  crystalized  by  you 
gentlemen  and  jour  associates  into  law.  Some  of  the  States  have 
already  acted.  We  have  recently,  in  New  England,  had  a  New  Eng- 
land conference  of  all  six  of  the  New  England  States,  called  by  the 
six  governors  of  New  England,  not  merely  in  regard  to  forestry,  but 
in  regard  to  other  legislation,  that  state  legislation  throughout  New 
England  may,  as  far  as  possible,  be  made  uniform  for  all  the  States, 
and  that  a  confusion  of  law  may  not  exist.  One  of  the  topics  there 
considered  was  forestry.  The  papers  read  and  the  discussion  were 
submitted  to  the  six  state  foresters  of  the  New  England  States,  and 
measures  have  already  been  recommended  by  them  for  adoption  by 
all  the  state  legislatures.  In  our  own  Commonwealth,  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts,  active  work  has  already  been  done  for  the 
preservation  of  our  forests.  Here,  for  example,  are  some  of  the  laws 
of  Massachusetts  which  I  will  present  to  the  committee,  and  as  you 
will  see  from  the  cover  of  this  little  pamphlet,  forest  fires,  especially 
as  caused  by  railroads,  have  been  made  the  subject  of  particular 
legislation.  We  have  a  forest  warden  for  every  city  and  town  in  the 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  charged  with  the  execution  of  these 
various  laws  and  with  the  prevention  of  forest  fires.  We  distribute 
free  to  the  people  instructions  how  to  collect  white-pine  seeds  and 
how  to  plant  them.  We  furnish  those  to  schools.  We  have  had 
applications  from  outside  of  our  own  Commonwealth  for  books  for 
children  with  instructions  how  to  distinguish  one  tree  from  another, 
and  how  they  can  be  preserved. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  State  of  Massachusetts 
is  taking  care  of  its  own  forest  problem  with  its  own  resources,  and 
is  not  asking  any  consideration  from  the  Federal  Government? 

Governor  GUILD.  Because,  sir,  we  have  no  great  tract  at  the  head 
of  our  great  rivers  which  demands  our  particular  attention.  Our 
great  rivers,  the  Connecticut  and  the  Merrimac,  arise  outside  of 
Massachusetts,  and  the  amount  of  land  which  would  there  have  to 
be  acquired  to  the  extent  of  the  timber  land  which  would  have  to 
be  protected  is,  as  seems  to  us  properly  stated  yesterday  by  the 
different  speakers  at  the  Belasco  Theater  at  the  Conservation  Com- 
mission, beyond  the  means  of  any  one  State  to  take  care  of.  We  are 
doing  this  as  supplementary  work  to  what  we  hope  the  National 
Government  will  do,  and  I  am  simply  quoting  this  to  show  that  we 
make  this  application  in  good  faith,  and  that  we  are  not  relying 
wholly  on  the  National  Government.  We  have,  for  example,  23,000 
acres  of  state  forest  reserves  in  Massachusetts.  Massachusetts  is  not 
asking  for  any  national  forest  reserve  in  Massachusetts,  but  she  does 
appear  here  for  her  sister  State  of  New  Hampshire,  and  asks  that 
the  White  Mountains  shall  be  protected  by  national  legislation,  be- 
cause, as  I  understand,  in  that  region  some  600,000  acres  will  be 
required,  and  that  is  beyond  the  limits  of  the  treasury  of  the  State 
of  New  Hampshire  to  attend  to.  Furthermore,  New  England  asks 
for  600,000  acres  for  her  forest  reserve,  and  she  is  equally  anxious 
that  her  southern  sisters,  to  the  south  of  us,  should  have  not  600,000 
acres,  but  if  necessary,  5,000,000  acres  for  the  preservation  of  the 
entire  Atlantic  watershed  and  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  States  of  the 
*  Union.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  WEEKS.  It  is  a  fact  that  23,000  acres  was  purchased  by  a 
direct  appropriation  for  that  purpose,  is  it  not? 


FOREST  LANDS  FOB  THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  7 

Governor  GUILD.  Yes;  the  reserves,  as  you  know.  In  addition  to 
the  state  forest  reserves,  I  should  say  we  have  great  systems  of  parks 
in  Massachusetts  which  also  include  forests.  The  various  municipali- 
ties in  Massachusetts  are  planting  trees.  Our  highway  commission  in 
Massachusetts  plant  trees  along  every  one  of  our  Massachusetts  state 
highways.  This  I  am  quoting  merely  to  show  the  good  faith  in  the 
demand  for  national  action,  that  we  are  prepared  to  supplement  your 
efforts,  gentlemen,  and  that  we  do  feel  that  the  various  States  in 
which  these  forest  reserves  are  located  ought  not  to  be  asked  to  pay 
for  them  from  the  limited  means  of  their  own  state  treasuries.  I 
appear  as  representing  one  of  the  Commonwealths  which  is  to  have 
no  national  forest  reserve  within  its  borders,  but  which  will  gladly 
contribute  its  share  of  the  national  revenue  to  establish  forest  re- 
serves, not  according  to  political  lines,  where  forest  reserves  are 
needed.  [Applause.] 

I  have  quoted  already  the  national  character  of  this  movement  and 
the  support  that  has  arisen  behind  it  all  over  the  nation.  I  might 
close  with,  perhaps,  a  bit  of  sentiment,  a  coincidence  if  you  please, 
which,  nevertheless,  is  rather  interesting.  When  the  United  States 
first  gathered  together  for  its  war  for  independence,  the  first  flag  of 
any  army  from  the  united  colonies,  the  flag  under  which  Washington 
took  command  of  the  Continental  troops  under  the  old  elm  tree  at 
Cambridge,  was  a  white  flag  with  a  pine  tree;  it  was  the  first  flag  of 
the  United  States  Army.  When  the  first  American  fleet  was  char- 
tered by  George  Washington  at  the  siege  of  Boston,  with  Commo- 
dore John  Hardy  and  a  little  fleet  of  fishing  schooners,  they  flew  a 
white  flag  with  a  pine  tree,  and  the  same  motto,  "An  appeal  to 
heaven."  The  first  flag  of  the  United  States  Army,  the  first  flag  of 
the  United  States  Navy,  under  which  they  began  the  battle  for  na- 
tional existence,  was  the  flag  of  the  liberty  tree,  the  flag  of  the  pine 
tree.  We  come  before  vou  in  peace,  as  they  went  forward  in  war, 
under  the  same  sign,  for  the  preservation  of  national  health  and 
national  wealth,  and  we  ask  for  the  preservation  of  forests,  not  in  the 
interest  of  any  one  State,  not  in  the  interest  of  any  section,  but  in  the 
interest  of  the  entire  American  people.  [Great  applause.] 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Governor,  I  do  not  know  whether  you  have  ever  had 
occasion  to  look  over  House  bill  22238,  which  is  a  bill  I  introduced  on 
this  subject.  I  just  wanted  to  ask  you  this  question.  I  think  the 
committee  are  all  agreed  that  the  object  for  which  you  gentlemen  are 
contending  is  a  good  one.  I  do  not  believe  this  committee  needs  any 
evidence  to  convince  it  that  something  ought  to  be  done.  What  we 
want  to  know  is  the  method,  the  means  to  the  end,  not  the  feasibility 
of  the  end  itself.  It  occurred  to  me,  and  I  have  embodied  the  idea  in 
this  bill,  that  the  Federal  Government  might,  without  the  necessity 
of  purchasing  these  tracts  of  land,  supervise  the  forests  and  accom- 
plish the  same  end  through  the  cooperation  of  the  States,  as  you  have 
suggested,  and  evade  the  necessity  of  the  purchase  of  the  lands  out- 
right. What  little  investigation  I  have  given  to  the  subject,  and  I 
think  the  same  holds  true  with  some  of  the  other  members  of  the 
committee,  has  convinced  me  that  if  we  enter  into  this  matter,  it  is 
not  a  question  of  the  purchase  of  5,000,000  acres  of  land  in  the  south- 
ern Appalachians  or  perhaps  600,000  acres  in  the  White  Mountains, 
but  ultimately  it  means  the  purchase  of  from  65,000,000  to  75,000,000 
acres  of  land  in  the  southern  Appalachians  and  perhaps  3,000,000  in 


8  FOREST  LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

the  White  Mountains,  so  it  is  a  pretty  big  task.  Now,  then,  if  we  can 
accomplish  the  same  purpose  without  purchasing,  why  should  we  not 
do  that?  Have  you  given  that  subject  any  consideration? 

Governor  GUILD.  I  most  certainly  have,  but  I  think  it  will  be 
answered  later  by  some  of  the  various  experts  on  whom  I  shall  call. 
But  I  might  call  your  attention,  sir,  and  no  doubt  it  has  already 
occurred  to  you,  that  the  National  Government  is  already  protecting 
reserve  tracts  of  public  land,  as,  for  example,  in  the  Yellowstone 
Park. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  That  is  different,  Governor ;  that  is  part  of  the  pub- 
lic domain.  We  are  speaking  of  private  land  now. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  understand  that,  sir,  entirely;  but  it  has  also 
found  constitutional  means  to  appropriate  money  for  the  irrigation 
of  the  dry  lands  of  the  West,  the  furnishing  of  a  water  supply  for 
those  dry  lands,  and  as  the  President  and  the  President  elected  and 
the  United  States  Senate  have  seemed  to  find  no  constitutional  diffi- 
culty with  that,  and  as  the  President  and  President  elected  seem  to 
think  it  desirable  even  to  issue  bonds,  if  necessary,  I  can  only  say  that 
I  cordially  agree  with  their  opinions,  and  we  will  have  it  demon- 
strated in  detail  later. 

I  shall  now  ask  Mr.  Finney  to  present  various  resolutions  favoring 
this  project. 

(The  following  resolutions  were  presented  by  Mr.  John  H.  Finney, 
secretary  of  the  Appalachian  National  Forest  Association:) 

At  the  eighty-fifth  meeting  of  this  association,  held  at  Saratoga  Springs, 
N.  Y.,  September  30,  1908,  the  following  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  National  Association  of  Cotton  Manufacturers  again 
recognizes  the  vital  importance  of  conserving  the  national  resources  to  diminish 
the  growing  evils  of  drought  and  flood  and  recommends  the  passing  of  laws  by 
States  and  nation  that  will  apply  in  correction  of  loss  through  fire,  waste,  and 
unscientific  lumbering,  and  encourage  the  planting  of  new  trees  necessary  to 
accomplish  an  increase  in  our  wooded  area.  It  has  been  fully  established  by 
experiences  in  other  countries  that  competent  forest  cultivation  results  in  an 
appreciable  increase  of  timber  products. 

"  We  heartily  indorse  the  effective  work  of  the  National  Commission  for  the 
Conservation  of  National  Resources,  and  recommend  that  our  association  cooper- 
ate with  this  commission  in  furthering  our  mutual  interests." 

A  true  copy  from  the  records. 

Attest:  C.  J.  H.  WOODBUBY, 

Secretary. 


lUTIONS  IN  BE  FOBEST  BKSERVES  IN  THE  WHITE  AND  APPALACHIAN   MOUNTAIN 
BANQES. 

Whereas  the  preservation  of  forests  is  indispensable  to  the  national  welfare 
in  order  that  a  permanent  timber  supply  may  be  had  and  that  the  water  supply 
of  rivers  may  be  maintained  and  regulated;  and 

Whereas  the  effect  of  denuding  mountain  ranges  of  timber  is  to  subject  them 
to  forrential  action  whereby  the  soil  is  washed  away,  the  surface  rendered  bar- 
ren, the  future  growth  of  forest  trees  prevented,  and  disastrous  floods  caused 
at  certain  seasons  in  the  lower  courses  of  the  streams,  with  great  destruction 
of  property  in  cities  and  towns  and  damage  to  farming  lands  in  the  river  bot- 
toms, while  at  other  seasons  stream  flow  is  almost  suspended  and  great  damage 
inflicted  upon  manufacturing  industries  dependent  upon  water  power  and 
navigation;  and 

Whereas  the  unrestricted  cutting  of  the  forests  upon  the  White  and  Appa- 
lachian mountain  ranges  threatens  those  forests  with  complete  destruction, 
whereby  one  of  the  most  important  sources  of  timber  supply  will  likewise  be 
destroyed,  irreparable  damage  be  inflicted  upon  vast  manufacturing  interests, 
particularly  in  the  New  England  States,  and  the  towns  and  cities  in  the 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  9 

drainage  area  of  the  Appalachian  range  be  subjected  to  great  harm  from 
annually  recurring  floods  of  increasing  volume ;  Now  therefore  be  it 

Rcsolrcd  by  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Merchants'  Association  of  New 
York,  That  the  welfare  of  the  nation  requires  that  the  National  Government 
provide,  as  speedily  as  possible,  for  the  preservation  of  forests,  especially  in 
mountain  regions,  the  regulation  of  timber  cutting  therefrom,  and  for  the  con- 
servation of  the  water  supply  arising  in  such  forests  with  a  view  to  lessening 
floods  and  maintaining  an  equitable  stream  flow  for  the  promotion  of  agricul- 
ture and  manufactures. 

Resolved,  That  speedy  action  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  neces- 
sary to  prevent  the  destruction  of  the  forests  of  the  White  and  Appalachian 
mountain  ranges  and  the  evils  incident  to  such  destruction,  and,  therefore, 
that  the  Congress  is  earnestly  requested  to  enact  into  law  the  measures  now 
pending  for  creating  forest  reserves  in  the  regions  named  with  a  view  to  pre- 
serving the  forests  thereof  by  restricting  and  regulating  the  cutting  of  timber 
and  promoting  new  growths. 


NEW  YORK  PRODUCE  EXCHANGE, 

New  York,  December  4,  1908. 
Mr.  W.  M.  CROMBIE, 

SI  New  Street,  New  York  City. 

DEAR  SIR  :  At  a  meeting  of  our  board  of  managers,  held  yesterday,  I  brought 
up  the  matter  of  forestry  conservation  and  replanting,  and  after  discussion 
the  inclosed  preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted. 

I  am  sure  these  resolutions  embody  the  sentiment  of  practically  our  entire 
membership,  as  we  are  all  fully  in  accord  with  the  desire  to  preserve  our  for- 
ests for  the  general  benefit  of  the  country. 

I  send  you  these  resolutions,  and  you  have  permission  to  use  them  in  any  way 
that  you  may  deem  most  advantageous. 

Yours,  very  truly,  WELDING  RING, 

President. 

Whereas  the  constant  cutting  off  of  our  forests,  which  is  rapidly  increasing 
every  year,  and  only  very  limited  efforts  being  made  to  restore  this  timber 
by  replanting;  and 

Whereas  this  destruction  of  our  forests  and  woodlands  is  very  greatly 
affecting  our  climate  by  the  quick  drying  up  of  our  streams  and  reducing  the 
water  supply  of  our  lakes  and  rivers,  thereby  seriously  interfering  with  naviga- 
tion; and 

Whereas  these  conditions  can  be  materially  changed  for  the  better  within  a 
reasonable  period  by  systematic  and  constant  replanting  and  by  proper  reser- 
vation of  lands  for  forest  reserves : 

Resolved,  That  the  New  York  Produce  Exchange  earnestly  requests  and  urges 
the  passage  of  one  or  more  of  the  bills  now  under  consideration  by  the  National 
Congress,  providing  for  the  reservation  of  forests  and  replanting  of  woodlands. 


RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED  BY  THE  DIRECTORS  OF  THE  LOUISVILLE  BOARD  OF  TRADE  AT  A 
MEETING  HELD  ON  JANUARY  22,  1908,  FAVORING  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE 
PROPOSED  APPALACHIAN  NATIONAL  FOREST. 

Whereas  official  statistics  show  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  face, 
within  a  decade,  a  lumber  famine  due  to  wasteful  and  extravagant  use  and 
wanton  methods  of  cutting;  and 

Whereas  our  Appalachian  forests  are  now  being  rapidly  depleted  and  are 
about  our  only  remaining  source  of  hard-wood  supply ;  and 

Whereas  we  recognize  that  forest  coverings  are  essential  not  only  to  our  tim- 
ber supply,  but  are  of  supreme  importance  to  climate  and  agriculture,  to  water 
supply  and  navigation;  and 

Whereas  the  cutting  already  done  has  shown  its  baneful  effects  throughout 
the  South,  and  demonstrates  forcibly  from  many  standpoints  the  necessity  of 
the  conservation  of  this  source  of  our  natural  wealth ;  and 

Whereas  the  perpetuation  of  our  forests  can  only  be  done  by  the  National 
Government:  Be  it 


10  FOREST  LANDS   FOR  THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Resolved,  That  the  Louisville  Board  of  Trade,  of  Louisville,  earnestly  urges 
upon  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  the  establishment  of  national  forests 
in  the  Appalachian  region  by  the  prompt  passage  of  the  Appalachian- White 
Mountain  bill. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  by  the  secretary  of  the 
board  to  all  Congressmen  and  Senators  from  this  State,  requesting  their  hearty 
and  active  support  and  their  vote  for  the  measure. 


EESOLUTIONS. 

CHABLES  TOWN,  W.  VA.,  November  26, 1908. 

Whereas  there  is  pending  before  the  House  of  Representatives  and  is  before 
the  Committee  on  Agriculture  Senate  bill  4825,  providing  for  the  establishment 
of  the  Appalachian-White  Mountain  National  Forest;  and 

Whereas  the  establishment  of  this  forest  area  is  deemed  of  vital  concern  to 
the  South  and  to  New  England,  as  well  as  to  the  nation  at  large :  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved  by  the  Board  of  Trade  of  Charles  Town,  W.  Va.,  having  a  member- 
ship of  75,  That  we  most  earnestly  indorse  the  project  of  establishing  such 
national  forest,  and  urge  upon  the  Congress  immediate  and  favorable  action 
thereon. 

Be  it  further  resolved,  That  we  urge  the  adoption  by  the  Congress  of  a  sys- 
tematic, progressive,  and  definite  forest  policy,  which  will  insure  the  extension 
of  the  national  forests  to  all  sections  of  the  country  where  they  may  be  con- 
stitutionally established. 

That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  sent  to  our  Senators  and  Representatives 
in  Congress  and  to  the  Appalachian  National  Forest  Association,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  for  presentation  before  the  House  Committee  on  Agriculture  December  9, 
or  such  ofher  date  as  may  be  set  for  the  public  hearing  on  the  bill. 

Adopted  November  26,  1908. 

[SEAL.]  S.  M.  OTT,  President. 

Attest : 

W.  I.  NOEBIS,  Secretary. 

Resolutions  similar  to  the  last  above  quoted  were  submitted  by  the  following : 
Engineers  and  Architects'  Club,  Louisville.  Ivy. 
Greater  Charlotte  Club,  Charlotte,  N.  C. 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  Washington,  N.  C. 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  Huntington,  W.  Va. 

Mobile  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Maritime  Exchange,  and  Shippers'  Association, 
Mobile,  Ala. 

Commercial  Club,  Cloverport,  Ky. 

Columbia  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Columbia,  S.  C. 

Cominercial  Club,  Montgomery,  Ala. 

Chamber  of  Commerce!  Roanoke,  Va. 

Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Industry,  Raleigh,  N.  C. 

Mass  meeting  of  citizens  of  Toccoa,  Ga. 

Chamber  of  Commerce,  Augusta,  Ga. 

Board  of  Trade,  Appalachicola,  Fla. 

Pulaski  Board  of  Trade,  Pulaski,  Tenn. 

Business  Men's  Club,  Wolfe,  W.  Va. 

Chamber  of  Commerce,  Spartanburg,  S.  C. 

Board  of  Trade,  Clarksburg,  Tenn. 

Board  of  Trade,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Tobacco  Board  of  Trade,  Oxford,  N.  C. 

Young  Men's  Commercial  Club,  Talladega,  Ala. 

Business  Men's  Association,  Mebane,  N.  C. 

Commercial  Club,  Johnson  City,  Tenn. 

Business  Men's  Club,  Memphis,  Tenn. 

Builders'  Exchange,  Louisville,  Ky. 

Newbern  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Newbern,  N.  C. 

Chamber  of  Commerce,  Elizabeth  City,  N.  C. 

Belington  Board  of  Trade,  Belington.  W.  Va. 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOB   THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATEESHEDS.  11 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  JOHN  G.  HUGE,  VICE-PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
SOUTHERN  COMMERCIAL  CONGRESS. 

Mr.  RUGE.  It  is  my  pleasure  and  privilege  and  honor,  as  vice-presi- 
dent of  the  Southern  Commercial  Congress,  to  present  to  you  a  reso- 
lution adopted  yesterday,  which  reads  as  follows : 

The  Southern  Commercial  Congress  in  convention  assembled,  with  accredited 
representatives  of  64  commercial  organizations  from  the  15  States  participating 
therein,  does  resolve  as  follows : 

Deeming  the  establishment  of  the  proposed  Appalachian  White  Mountain 
National  Forest  of  paramount  importance  to  the  nation,  and  realizing  the  ur- 
gent necessity  of  immediate  congressional  action  thereon,  we  commend  the 
Senate  in  passing  the  bill ;  we  deplore  the  delay  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
and  its  Agricultural  Committee  in  withholding  favorable  action  upon  it;  and 
we  unite,  as  earnest  and  patriotic  believers  in  the  utmost  conservation  of  our 
national  resources,  of  which  the  forest  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  important,  in 
this  expression  of  dissatisfaction  in  any  further  delay. 

And  we  further  instruct  the  chairman  of  this  congress  to  appoint  a  committee 
of  this  body  to  attend  the  hearing  before  the  Agricultural  Committee  on  Wednes- 
day, December  9,  and  to  express  in  no  uncertain  terms  our  attitude  in  this 
matter. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  have  asked  pur  representatives  here  to-day  to 
confine  their  remarks  to  the  five-minute  limit,  and  with  your  consent, 
sir,  shall  notify  them  when  their  time  has  expired. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  committee,  with 
the  understanding  that,  in  fairness  to  the  gentlemen  appearing,  if 
the  committee  protracts  their  time  with  questions  of  its  own  the  limit 
will  not  be  enforced. 

Governor  GUILD.  We  appreciate  your  kindly  courtesy,  sir,  and 
merely  desire  to  reciprocate. 

As  the  first  speaker,  especially  as  he  is  obliged  to  attend  duties  in 
the  Senate  chamber  shortly,  I  shall  call  upon  the  Chaplain  of  the 
Senate,  the  Rev.  Edward  Everett  Hale. 

STATEMENT   OF  DR.   EDWARD   EVERETT   HALE,   CHAPLAIN   OF 
THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE. 

Doctor  HALE.  The  reason  why  Governor  Guild  calls  upon  me  is 
that  I  am  the  oldest  person  hereabouts  who  has  really  worked  in  the 
New  Hampshire  forests.  I  had  the  good  fortune,  when  I  was  19 
years  old,  as  a  boy,  to  serve  on  the  Geological  Survey  in  the  State 
of  New  Hampshire.  I  have  slept  under  these  very  pine  trees  which 
have  long  ago  been  cast  down,  and  within  two  years  I  went  over  the 
absolute  ground,  where  there  was  not  a  stick  as  big  as  that  stick  I  have 
to  lean  on  now.  It  makes  a  man  cry,  when  he  has  slept  under  a  pine 
tree  10  feet  in  diameter.  I  have  talked  with  men  who  saw  George  the 
Third's  "  broad  arrow  "  on  trees,  which  the  King  would  never  per- 
mit to  be  cut  down — and  now  to  see  the  places  where  they  grew  grow- 
ing up  in  blackberry  bushes.  I  respect  entirely  what  the  chairman 
has  said  as  to  the  nature  of  the  testimony  desired  by  the  committee, 
and  I  will  try  to  confine  myself  within  that  limit. 

When  I  was  here  a  year  ago  the  question  had  not  been  raised,  even 
as  an  academic  question,  as  to  the  right  of  this  committee  to  do  any- 
thing about  it.  The  chairman  informs  us  that  it  has  been  raised 
since.  I  went  from  this  room  then  and  addressed  a  note  to  the  Navy 


12  FOREST  LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Department  and  to  the  Land  Office,  and  asked  them  to  send  us  the 
particulars  about  the  purchase,  more  than  one  hundred  years  ago, 
by  the  Navy  Department,  of  lands  at  the  South,  because  they  had 
live  oak  upon  them/from  which  the  department  wanted  to  build  our 
frigates  and  vessels.  The  Land  Office  and  "the  Navy  Department 
together  were  kind  enough  to  furnish  those  documents,  and  they  are 
the  evidence  that  more  than  one  hundred  years  ago  the  nation  was 
in  the  habit  of  buying  land,  owning  land  in  fee  simple,  from  different 
States  and  from  different  individuals  all  through  the  South  be- 
cause it  had  live  oak  upon  it,  and  that  covers  completely  every  state- 
ment which  gentlemen  have  wished  to  make  here  with  regard  to  that. 
Those  papers  can  be  obtained  by  the  chairman  and  by  yourselves. 

Speaking  about  denudation,  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  lesson  that 
the  committee  can  learn  outside  of  the  hills  of  New  Hampshire  them- 
selves as  to  what  we  mean  by  denudation.  In  the  old  days,  of  which 
the  governor  has  spoken  just  now,  these  pine  trees  were  employed 
in  the  American  Navy.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  great  battles  of  1780 
and  1781,  when  the  British  navy  was  engaged,  when  the  American 
Navy  was  engaged,  when  the  French  navy  was  engaged,  when  the 
Spanish  navy  was  engaged,  every  spar  used  by  every  frigate,  prob- 
ably, and  every  man-of-war  was  from  the  New  Hampshire  and  Maine 
forests.  Up  until  1775  the  export  of  these  spars  had  been  necessary, 
and  every  navy-yard  in  western  Europe  and  every  fleet  in  all  the 
great  naval  encounters  flew  their  flags  from  flagstaffs  supplied  from 
the  New  Hampshire  forests.  In  the  last  ten  years,  I  was  going  to 
say,  there  has  not  been  a  spar  as  big  as  that  cane  sold  from  a  New 
England  forest,  and  why  is  it?  It  is  because  in  the  present  business 
of  lumbering — the  very  paper  you  are  writing  upon  is  made  from 
spruce  timber  cut  down  up  there.  A  lumber  baron  will  send  his 
men  in,  and  he  says,  "  Oh,  do  not  pick  out  the  good  trees ;  cut  down 
everything."  It  is  so  much  easier  to  clear  the  whole  thing,  make  a 
clean  sweep  of  it,  that  the  denudation  goes  forward  as  it  did  not  go 
forward  in  the  days  when  I  was  a  surveyor  there.  In  those  days  the 
man  who  sold  lumber  sold  timber  which  was  of  use  to  cut  up.  Now,  if 
he  can  sell  a  stick  as  big  as  my  arm  he  can  make  as  good  paper  out 
of  that  stick  as  he  can  make  out  of  a  big  log,  and  therefore  the  in- 
structions to  the  workmen  are  to  cut  down  everything  and  to  leave 
nothing. 

*  Then  comes  a  God-appointed  shower,  and  the  shower  washes  off 
everything,  because  you  have  nothing  to  hold  back  the  water.  It 
washes  off  everything.  It  washes  off  all  the  soil,  everything  that  will 
go.  It  washes  off  everything  but  large  stones.  So,  when  Governor 
Guild  and  I  go  up  there  with  our  nice  pine  seed  and  plant  them 
there  they  will  not  grow.  You  have  swept  away  the  soil,  and  you 
have  nothing  left  but  gravel  and  rock. 

The  plea,  therefore,  for  the  preservation  of  the  forests,  that  has 
now  become  a  national  plea,  is  a  plea  made  necessary  on  account 
of  the  uses  made  of  the  timber  when  it  has  been  cut  down,  and  I  beg 
that  you  put  in  as  a  part  of  the  statement  we  make  that  the  cutting 
down  of  the  forests  now  leaves  the  thing  as  bare  as  that  table,  you 
might  almost  say,  and  it  sweeps  down  the  soil,  and  the  governor  has 
told  you  what  becomes  of  it.  It  lies  on  the  shores  of  the  rivers  and 
creates  malaria  and  all  those  evils. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  13 

The  precise  position  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  has  been 
alluded  to.  I  am  a  resident  of  that  State  every  summer;  in  fact,  I 
officially  represent  here  a  body  of  the  people  of  one  of  the  valleys 
there,  who  were  kind  enough  to  make  me  the  chairman.  That  State, 
the  chairman  must  remember,  includes  not  only  the  waters  of  the 
Connecticut  Kiver,  but  the  waters  of  the  Androscoggin  River,  which 
rise  in  the  State  of  Maine.  I  do  not  think,  Mr.  Chairman^  that 
anybody  had  dreamed,  when  I  was  here  a  year  ago,  that  this  com- 
mittee had  not  full  power  to  act  in  that  purpose.  I  think  it  was  an 
academic  question  which  came  up  afterwards,  when  our  friends  say 
the  Judiciary  Committee  sent  down  to  you  and  said  you  could  not 
do  certain  things  which  you  wished  to  do.  But  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  question  of  the  live-oak  lands  is  an  interesting  one,  and  it  shows 
that  the  people  one  hundred  years  ago  thought  they  had  that  power, 
and  if  that  does  arise,  it  shows  that  the  conditions  of  timber  cutting 
are  wholly  different  from  what  they  were  one  hundred  years  ago. 

I  see  the  chairman  looking  at  his  watch,  and  I  only  allude  to  the 
question  of  the  bonds,  and  if  you  will  fix  it  so  that  the  Government 
will  take  care  of  the  forests  as  Bavaria  and  other  European  countries 
have,  fifty  years  hence  you  will  have  a  larger  revenue  from  your 
forests  and  you  will  pay  "f or  your  bonds  with  them. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  JOHN  H.  STEPHENS,  A  REPRESENTATIVE  IN 
CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  desire  to  state  that  I  have  a  bill  on 
all  fours  with  the  Appalachian  and  White  Mountain  bill,  for  protect- 
ing a  natural  forest  growing  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Red  River  in 
the  plains  of  Texas,  extending  almost  to  the  eastern  side  of  New 
Mexico.  We  have  organized,  in  the  southwest  four  States,  into  a 
congress  known  as  "  The  Red  River  Improvement  Association."  We 
passed  resolutions  requesting  that  100,000  acres  of  land  be  purchased 
on  the  headwaters  of  the  Red  River  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the 
forests  there,  and  the  conditions  will  not  exist  as  described  by  the  last 
speaker  if  Congress  would  purchase  this  land  and  protect  the  timber 
there  now,  which  will  not  require  being  replanted.  Neither  will  the 
conditions  exist  that  exist  at  present  in  the  Southern  Appalachians, 
but  the  land  has  passed  from  the  State  of  Texas ;  it  no  longer  belongs 
to  us.  One-half  of  it  was  given  for  the  purpose  of  building  interstate 
railroads  running  across  the  continent,  the  Texas  Pacific  and  the 
Southern  Pacific,  and  that  is  the  reason  we  have  not  any  public  do- 
main left  there,  mainly  because  we  gave  away  one-half  of  it  for  the 
purpose  of  building  our  railroads.  So  we  now  ask  that  the  Govern- 
ment appropriate  $500,000  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  100,000  acres 
of  land  as  a  forest  reserve  and  a  park  on  the  headwaters  of  that  river. 
This  is  joined  in  by  all  of  those  States  and  by  various  cities  and  towns 
and  various  associations,  and  I  will  now  ask  leave  to  file  these,  together 
with  the  numerous  maps  and  documents  obtained  from  the  Forestry 
Bureau  and  other  documents  of  interest  in  this  matter,  with  your  com- 
mittee for  your  investigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Without  objection,  the  papers  will  be  filed. 


14  FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Be  it  remembered  that  at  the  second  meeting  of  the  Red  River  Improvement 
Association,  held  in  Denison,  Tex.,  on  November  6,  1908,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  unanimously  adopted : 

"  Resolved,  That  we  favor  the  passage  of  the  bill  now  pending  in  Congress  to 
create  a  national  park  and  timber  reserve  in  the  canyons  forming  the  head  of 
Red  River,  believing  the  preservation  of  the  forests  to  be  essential  to  the 
improvement  of  Red  River." 

Respectfully  submitted. 

JNO.  H.  STEPHENS, 
Author  of  bill  referred  to,  etc. 


To  the  chairman  Red  River  Improvement  Convention: 

We,  your  committee  on  forest  reserve,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following 
report : 

Whereas  this  convention,  recognizing  the  great  natural  resources  of  the  Red 
River  Valley  and  of  the  paramount  importance  of  restoring  navigation  on  the 
Red  River,  not  alone  to  the  people  along  said  river,  but  to  the  nation  as  well, 
and  of  the  importance  of  preserving  and  fostering  of  the  native  timber  at  the 
head  of  and  along  said  river  and  its  tributaries ;  and  whereas  the  Hon.  John  H. 
Stephens,  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  Thirteenth  District  of  Texas, 
has  introduced  in  Congress  a  bill  seeking  to  have  a  national  park  established  in 
the  Palo  Duro  Canyon,  in  Randall  and  Armstrong  counties,  Tex.,  on  the  head- 
waters of  Red  River. 

Therefore  we  indorse  said  bill  and  recommend  that  the  same  be  passed  by 
Congress  at  its  next  session,  and  further  recommend  that  this  association  take 
steps  to  encourage  the  people  along  the  Red  River  and  its  tributaries  in 
systematically  preserving  the  natural  forests  along  said  stream  and  its  tribu- 
taries and  engaging  in  fostering  the  growth  of  timber  as  well. 

We  further  recommend  that  the  secretary  of  this  organization  be  requested  to 
furnish  a  copy  of  this  document  to  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Con- 
gress of  the  States  of  Texas,  Oklahoma,  Louisiana,  and  Arkansas  and  request 
their  united  efforts  in  support  of  the  above  measures. 
Respectfully  submitted. 

J.  W.  CBUDGINGTON, 

Chairman,  Amarillo,  Tex. 

HENRY  Cox,  Fulton,  Ark. 

H.  P.  MAYEB,  Paris,  Tex. 

S.  R.  CBAWFORD,  Graham,  Tex. 

J.  B.  LEEPEE,  Denison- Sherman,  Tex. 

H.  G.  EVANS,  Bonham,  Tex. 

HUGH  COREY,  Alexandria,  La. 

R.  D.  BOWEN,  Pan's,  Tex. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  If  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  will  permit  me,  I 
will  inform  him  that  the  governor  of  Texas  will  take  pleasure  in 
joining  with  vou  and  with  the  governor  of  South  Carolina,  and  with 
greater  zeal,  because  she  is  much  larger  than  all  the  Southern  States 
and  all  New  England  combined.  [Laughter.] 

Governor  GUILD.  And  you  might  add  one  more  thing,  that  the 
other  States  joined  together  to  make  a  nation,  but  Texas  as  an  inde- 
pendent nation  joined  the  United  States. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  gentlemen  must  remember  that  Texas  annexed 
the  United -States.  Texas  was  an  independent  government  itself, 
and  I  always  contend  that  Texas  annexed  the  United  States,  and  not 
the  United  States  Texas.  [Laughter.] 

Governor  GUILD.  There  is  no  compliment  which  you  can  pay  to 
the  Lone  Star  State  which  we  of  New  England  will  not  take  pleasure 
in  joining  with  you. 

I  take  pleasure  in  presenting  as  the  next  speaker  a  gentleman  who 
is  obliged  to  leave  very  shortly,  and  I  therefore  will  introduce  him 
out  of  order,  one  of  the  governors  of  the  West.  I  take  pleasure  in 
presenting  Governor  George  E.  Chamberlain,  of  Oregon. 


FOREST  LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  15 

STATEMENT  OF  GOVERNOR  GEORGE  E.   CHAMBERLAIN,   OF 
OREGON. 

Governor  CHAMBERLAIN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  here 
at  the  request  of  some  of  the  distinguished  gentlemen  from  the 
Northeast  to  join  with  them  on  the  part  of  the  Northwest  in  further- 
ing this  movement.  I  desire  to  say  that  Oregon  has  at  least  one-fifth, 
probably  a  little  more  than  one-fifth,  of  her  area  in  the  federal 
reserves,  and  that  area  embraces  the  most  magnificent  forest  reserves 
of  the  whole  western  country.  Until  the  Government  established 
these  reserves  and  took  control  of  them  there  was  very  little  done 
toward  forestry  protection,  but  since  the  Government  has  taken 
charge  these  forests  have  been  better  preserved,  trespassers  are  in 
greater  fear  of  the  Government  than  they  ever  would  be  of  any  of  the 
state  authorities,  and  the  results  there  are  splendid.  I  want  to  say 
that  I  believe  that  some  policy  ought  to  be  taken  by  Congress  to 
acquire,  not  in  the  name  of  the  State,  but  in  the  name  of  the  United 
States,  those  deforested  areas,  not  only  in  the  Northeast,  but  along  in 
the  Appalachian  Range  as  well.  The  suggestion  has  been  made  that 
possibly  the  same  end  might  be  subserved  if  the  title  remains  as  it  is, 
or  possibly  in  the  State  with  federal  supervision,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  in  order  to  accomplish  results  these  lands  ought  to  be  purchased 
by  the  Federal  Government,  either  by  agreement  with  the  parties 
who  own  them  or  by  the  exercise  of  eminent  domain,  if  that  can  be 
done,  and  I  think  it  can  be.  Not  only  will  it  be  necessary  for  refor- 
estation of  the  deforested  areas,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  will  eventually 
become  necessary  to  expropriate,  if  I  may  use  that  term,  the  ownership 
in  the  water  powers  as  well  as  in  the  deforested  areas.  So  I  want  to 
say  that  the  Northwest  heartily  joins  in  this  movement,  and  I  think 
that  the  Government,  if  it  does  not  do  it  now,  will  be  compelled  in 
the  very  near  future,  for  its  own  protection,  to  buy  these  areas. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  need  scarcely  remind  you  gentlemen  that  Gov- 
ernor Chamberlain  spoke  for  the  governors  of  all  of  the  United 
States  in  response  to  the  address  of  the  President. 

I  present  as  the  next  speaker  the  president  of  the  University  of 
Wisconsin,  Dr.  C.  R.  Van  Hise. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  C.  R.  VAN  HISE,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNI- 
VERSITY OF  WISCONSIN. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  On  yesterday  afternoon  I  had  no  expectation  of 
saying  anything  in  reference  to  this  matter  to  the  Committee  on  Agri- 
culture, but  the  men  who  are  especially  interested  in  this  measure  in 
the  southeastern  part  of  the  United  States  asked  me  to  say  a  few 
words  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  that  part  of  the  country.  As 
a  member  of  the  Geological  Survey  for  a  number  of  years  I  had 
charge  of  the  work  in  that  region,  and  therefore  traveled  extensively 
over  it  all  the  way  from  Virginia  to  Georgia.  I  am  therefore  some- 
what familiar — indeed  very  familiar — with  the  actual  situation  in 
that  region.  I  am  not  going  to  undertake  to  present  the  details  upon 
which  the  conclusion  is  reached  that  this  upland  region  should  be 
reserved  as  a  forest,  since  I  understood  one  of  the  members  of  the 
committee  to  say  that  that  point  was  already  conceded;  that  it  was 
admitted  that  it  was  extremely  desirable — indeed,  almost  necessary — 
that  this  great  upland  region  be  reserved  as  a  forest. 


16  FOREST  LANDS   FOE  THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

However,  there  is  just  one  point  in  connection  with  that  to  which 
I  wish  to  call  your  attention.  It  is  this,  that  this  region  is  one  in 
which  the  conditions  are  especially  critical.  In  the  northeastern  part 
of  the  United  States — and  I  am  not  talking  against  the  White  Moun- 
tain reserve,  for  I  believe  in  it — in  the  northeastern  part  of  the  United 
States,  or  in  the  northern  part  of  the  United  States,  below  the  sur- 
face there  is  a  sand  and  gravel  which  makes  a  porous  stratum  which 
carries  water.  In  this  southeastern  part  of  the  United  States  the 
rocks  have  not  disintegrated  and  are  nonporous;  there  is  clay.  The 
water  does  not  readily  find  its  way  into  them,  and  the  result  is  that  it 
gathers  upon  the  surface  very  readily  and  very  easily  into  streams  of 
considerable  power,  and  is  therefore'  especially  potent  in  this  matter 
of  erosion.  Every  one  of  you  who  is  at  all  familiar  with  the  region 
in  the  southeastern  part  of  the  United  States  must  have  appreciated 
how  much  more  extensive  the  erosion  is  in  that  region,  even  on  slopes 
of  moderate  steepness,  than  it  is  in  these  other  regions  in  which  the 
conditions  are  less  crucial,  and  therefore  I  wish  to  urge  that  in  this 
particular  the  southern  Appalachian  forest  region  has  an  exceptional 
demand  for  attention.  I  unhesitatingly  assert  that  somehow,  for  the 
good  of  the  States  and  the  nation  as  a  whole,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
to  preserve  the  protective  covering  of  vegetation  on  this  upland  area 
of  the  southeastern  part  of  the  United  States.  But  that  I  understand 
to  be  conceded,  and  therefore  I  shall  not  dwell  upon  it.  So  that  the 
question  comes  back,  How  can  this  great  task  be  accomplished  ?  Why 
should  the  Government  undertake  a  portion  of  its  accomplishment  ? 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  a  tremendous  task ;  a  task  of  such  magnitude 
that  to  properly  accomplish  it  will  require,  it  seems  to  me,  the  joint 
efforts  of  the  nation,  of  the  States,  and  of  the  citizens.  But  if  it  is 
merely  a  local  interest,  why  should  the  nation  participate?  And  that, 
of  course,  is  the  crucial  question,  from  your  point  of  view.  It  seems 
to  me  there  are  two  very  good  reasons,  one  of  which  has  been  sug- 
gested to  me  since  I  came  into  this  room,  why  the  nation  ought  to  par- 
ticipate, why  they  will  find  it  economical  to  participate  in  this  mat- 
ter. In  the  first  place,  the  nation  is  taking  up  the  question  of 
improving  its  waterways,  to  maintain  a  uniform  and  equable  flow. 
There  is  talk  of  spending  not  five  millions,  or  ten  millions,  but 
scores  of  millions  of  dollars  in  the  improvement  of  inland  water- 
ways. This  vast  expenditure  which  is  necessary  can  be  reduced,  in 
my  judgment,  and  I  think  if  time  were  sufficient  it  could  be  proved 
that  it  could  be  reduced  if  the  problem  is  studied  at  the  head  in- 
stead of  the  foot ;  that  is,  if  the  forests  are  preserved,  if  the  covering 
vegetation  is  preserved,  a  uniform  and  equable  flow  of  the  streams 
is  produced. 

The  question  may  be  asked,  Is  it  a  fact  that  in  consequence  of  the 
removal  of  the  forests  floods  have  increased  ?  Does  the  water  go  down 
more  rapidly  at  one  time  and  less  rapidly  at  another  in  consequence 
of  the  removal  of  the  forests  ?  In  reference  to  the  Tennessee  River, 
one  of  the  long  streams  which  heads  in  this  region,  that  is  unquestion- 
ably true.  The  most  careful  investigation  which  has  ever  been  made 
in  this  country  upon  the  relation  of  forest  covering  to  stream  flow 
has  been  made  by  Mr.  Leighton  of  the  United  States  Geological  Sur- 
vey during  this  past  summer.  This  investigation  has  taken  into  ac- 
count not  only  the  number  of  floods  during  the  past  twelve  years 
and  the  previous  twelve  years,  but  the  number  of  flood-producing 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  17 

rains,  for  an  investigation  which  does  not  take  into  account  the  num- 
ber of  flood-producing  rains  is  very  imperfect.  I  can  not,  of  course, 
in  the  five  minutes  time  present  these  results  in  detail.  I  will  sum 
it  up  in  a  sentence  and  leave  the  question  to  be  proved  by  Mr.  Leigh- 
ton  in  case  you  desire  it,  but  the  result  of  his  investigation  shows  that 
as  a  consequence  of  the  change  of  conditions  due  to  deforestation 
during  the  past  twelve  years  the  floods  are  18.75  per  cent  more  fre- 
quent than  they  were  during  the  previous  twelve  years,  taking  into 
account  the  precipitation,  the  number  of  flood-producing  rains,  as 
well  as  all  the  other  factors.  This  is  the  first  investigation  which  has 
been  made,  and  this  investigation  concerns  directly  this  southern 
Appalachian  forest  reserve. 

.  Now,  the  second  point  is  this :  The  Government  spends  millions  of 
dollars  in  dredging  out  harbors,  and  yet  no  effort  is  made  by  the  Gov- 
ernment to  prevent  the  silt  from  going  down  into  harbors  and  filling 
them  up,  and  so  that  process  goes  on  year  after  year  and  year  after 
year  and  must  continue  to  go  on,  because  it  will  never  be  possible  to 
altogether  prevent  the  silt  from  going  down  into  the  harbors. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  it  not  always  gone  down? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  It  has  always  gone  down. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  not  the  location  of  the  great  bar  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Columbia,  which  has  existed  ever  since  navigation  discovered 
that  access,  indicate  that  there  has  been  very  severe,  erosion  through 
that  watershed  from  time  immemorial,  and  extending  through  a  time 
when  the  watershed  was  just  as  perfectly  protected  as  it  ever  could  be 
by  forests? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  That  is  entirely  true.  There  never  will  be  a 
time  in  which  the  silt  will  not  be  carried  down  into  the  harbors  and 
rolled  over  and  over  and  carried  along  by  the  waves  meeting  the  cur- 
rent. There  never  will  be  a  time  when  that  is  not  the  fact,  and  there 
never  will  be  a  time  in  which  the  harbors  will  not  fill  up.  But  the 
amount  of  silt  that  is  carried  down  from  the  mountains  has  been 
vastly  increased  as  a  result  of  this  deforestation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  merely  a  deductive  opinion,  or  is  it  a 
demonstrated  fact? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  It  is  a  demonstrated  fact,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from 
the  results  of  these  very  investigations  that  have  been  made  with 
reference  to  the  Tennessee.  There  is  no  question  on  the  part  of  any- 
body that  the  erosion  in  the  South  and  in  the  headwaters  of  these 
streams,  as  the  result  of  the  removal  of  the  forests,  has  gone  on  at  a 
speed  which  never  occurred  before.  That  is  to  say,  before  the  forests 
were  removed  the  forces  of  nature  were  making  the  soil  faster  than  it 
was  being  washed  away,  so  that  the  soil  was  ever  getting  thicker  and 
thicker  and  thicker.  Wherever  the  forests  have  been  removed,  and 
especially  on  the  steeper  slopes,  erosion  has  gone  on  faster  than  the 
making  of  the  soil,  so  that  the  bare  rocks  are  protruding,  conclusive 
proof  that  there  has  been  carried  down  with  the  streams,  and  ulti- 
mately to  the  mouths  of  the  streams,  much  more  material  than  was 
carried  down  under  conditions  of  forest  cover. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  any  investigation  been  made  to  determine 
what  proportion  of  the  soil,  eroded  from  the  slopes  at  the  headwaters 
of  a  stream  like  the  Tennessee,  reaches  the  navigable  portions  of  that 
stream  ? 

72538— AGR--09 2 


18  FOREST  LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  There  will  be  a  direct  relation,  unquestionably. 
It  will  not  reach  it  at  once.  Of  course  the  silt  picked  up  high  in  the 
mountain  is  carried  part  of  the  way  down  with  this  flood  and  it  is 
dropped  on  the  way;  then  another  flood  comes  along  and  it  is  carried 
a  little  farther  down  and  dropped  again,  and  ultimately  it  either 
reaches  the  outlet  and  fills  the  harbor  or  else  flows  over  its  banks  and 
destroys  the  farming  lands,  as  in  California,  where  sand  and  gravel 
have  been  distributed  over  the  lowlands  as  a  result  of  hydraulic  min- 
ing operations.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  silt  and  loosened 
material  that  goes  down  in  the  Appalachian  and  White  Mountain 
regions,  if  those  regions  were  denuded,  would  be  fully  one  hundred 
times  as  much  as  has  been  washed  down  in  the  rivers  of  California  as 
a  result  of  hydraulic  mining  operations. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  very  familiar  with  the  Southern  Appa- 
lachians ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  your  opinion  has  the  erosion  which  has  thus  far 
taken  place  come  from  the  operations  of  lumbering  or  from  farming? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Mainly  from  farming  as  yet,  but  of  course  it  is' 
a  twofold  thing.  It  naturally  happens  that  when  the  timber  is  re- 
moved it  is  removed  from  the  more  accessible  areas.  When  once  it  is 
removed  from  an  accessible  area  that  accessible  area  will  be  made  into 
a  farm.  Combination  of  the  two  results  in  the  erosion.  Undoubtedly 
there  have  been  mistakes  in  this  particular.  Some  areas  from  which 
the  timber  has  been  removed,  or  removed  in  part,  should  never  have 
been  made  into  farms.  They  are  too  high  up,  the  slopes  are  too  steep, 
so  that  the  erosion  goes  on  with  excessive  rapidity,  and  therefore  it 
can  not  be  asserted  to  be  one  or  the  other ;  it  is  the  result  of  both. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  large  sections  of  the  Appalachians  have 
been  lumbered.  All  the  valuable  merchantable  timber  has  been  taken 
out.  In  such  sections  have  the  lumbering  operations  gone  to  the 
extent  of  contributing  very  greatly  to  the  erosion? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  think  they  have.  I  want  to  be  perfectly  fair 
and  express  the  things  in  absolute  proportion.  I  do  not  believe  that 
the  lumbering  operations  alone,  m  case  the  lands  had  not  been 
farmed  afterwards,  would  have  resulted  in  as  great  erosion  as  has 
resulted  from  the  farming  operations  after  it  on  lands  not' adapted 
to  farming.  The  great  difficulty  has  come  as  a  result  of  lumbering 
operations  followed  by  farming  operations  on  lands  that  never  should 
have  been  taken  for  farming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  know,  of  course,  that  the  clearing  of  the 
slopes  for  farming  in  the  southern  Appalachians  has  been  under  the 
compulsion  of  necessity.  Men  have  been  obliged  to  find  some  place 
upon  which  to  earn  a  living,  and  they  have  cleared  certain  of  the 
most  accessible  slopes.  They  have  not  deliberately  and  with  malice 
aforethought  gone  and  taken  the  steep  and  almost  inaccessible  slopes 
when  other  land  was  available.  We  are  obliged,  therefore,  to  take 
into  consideration  the  conditions  that  exist  and  which  have  resulted 
as  a  mere  incident  of  civilization.  Remembering  that,  and  remem- 
bering, as  I  think  we  also  must,  that  the  people  of  North  Carolina, 
for  example,  must  continue  to  live  in  North  Carolina — we  can  not 
depopulate  the  State  and  send  it  back  to  the  wilderness — I  would 
like  to  ask  you,  if  you  were  commissioned  by  the  Government  to  buy 
land  in  North  Carolina  for  the  conservation  of  the  stream  flow,  would 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  19 

you  purchase  the  lower  slopes  or  the  upper  slopes  of  the  mountain  ? 
And  I  want  your  scientific  opinion. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  shall  give  you  my  best  judgment  of  the  mat- 
ter. My  principle  of  action  would  be  this :  Upon  the  whole,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  nation,  is  this  land  more  valuable  to  the  nation 
for  agricultural  purposes  or  for  the  purposes  of  forestry  and  the 
regulating  of  the  sCTlams?  If,  upon  the  whole,  that  land,  using  the 
best  data  and  judgment,  if  the  slopes  were  such,  the  soils  were  such, 
the  conditions  were  such  that  the  land  could  be  used  for  a  reason- 
able length  of  time,  with  care  practically  perpetually,  for  agricul- 
tural purposes,  certainly  it  should  be  used  for  agricultural  purposes. 
But  if  the  slopes  are  so  steep  that  that  is  not  practicable;  if  the 
slopes  are  so  steep  that  it  is  not  economical  to  do  that;  if  the  slopes 
are  so  steep,  as  in  the  Balsams,  for  instance,  where  the  land  will  be 
gone  in  five  years,  that  never  should  have  been  allowed  to  become  an 
agricultural  tract,  and  if  under  those  circumstances  that  land  has 
become  an  agricultural  tract,  it  should  be  reconverted  into  a  forest 
tract. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Governor  Guild,  let  me  say  aside,  you  will  pardon 
me  for  taking  this  time  with  Mr.  Van  Hise,  but  it  is  because  we  know 
he  is  an  expert  on  this  question,  and  I  think  we  can  get  some  informa- 
tion, and  I  am  sure  the  committee  will  extend  the  time. 

Governor  GUILD.  Certainly,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  Doctor,  leaving  out  of  account  the  question 
of  the  rights  or  the  necessity  of  the  people  to  live  in  North  Carolina, 
as  a  scientific  proposition,  if  you  were  commissioned  to  buy  the  land 
and  had  to  take  your  choice  between  the  lower  third  and  the  upper 
two-thirds  of  the*  ranges,  and  your  only  purpose  in  buying  it  was  to 
conserve  the  stream  flow,  which  would  you  buy? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  would  buy  the  headwaters  of  the  streams. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  understand  my  meaning.  I  say. 
Would  you  buy  the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountains  or  the  upper  slopes, 
assuming  that  you  could  not  get  both,  but  that  you  would  take  the 
one  which  would  most  conserve  the  stream  flow? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  can  not  make  quite  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  that,  because  the  erosion  depends  on  two  things — on  the  steepness 
of  the  slope  and  the  volume  of  the  water;  and,  of  course,  the  lower 
down  the  slope  you  are.  the  heavier  the  volume  of  water  is.  There- 
fore those  uplands  which  should  be  selected  first  should  be  those  up- 
lands in  which  the  slopes  are  so  steep  that  if  converted  into  agricul- 
tural lands  they  would  be  p'ractically  destroyed,  but  low  enough  down 
so  that  they  would  be  where  the  erosion  would  be  likely  to  be  the 
greatest.  I  would  not  select  the  tops  of  the  mountains,  the  flat  tops, 
because  the  lands  on  the  top  there  would  not  be  so  easily  washed  off 
because  they  are  flat,  in  the  first  place,  and  because,  in  the  second 
place,  the  stream  currents  are  not  strong.  But  after  you  get  over  the 
top  and  down  these  slopes  here  and  the  streams  have  gotten  the 
volume  so  that  the  erosion  would  be  great  and  the  slopes  are  steep 
there;  joining  those  two  factors  together  and  picking  out  the  area  in 
which  the  damage  would  be  the  greatest  by  the  removing  of  the  for- 
ests; those  would  be  the  areas  which  I  should  select  if  it  were  left 
to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  I  had  a  cone  here  approximately  the  shape 
of  a  mountain,  sitting  in  a  panfull  of  water:  suppose  I  tie  a  sponge 


20  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

tightly  about  the  upper  two-thirds  of  that  cone  and  sprinkle  lamp- 
black over  the  lower  third,  and  then  have  an  artificial  rain  falling 
on  the  whole  cone.  The  water  in  the  pan  would  be  discolored  immedi- 
ately, would  it  not,  by  the  washing  of  the  lampblack? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Undoubtedly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Supposing  now  we  reverse  the  situation,  sprinkle 
the  lampblack  over  the  upper  two-thirds  and  bind  the  sponge  tightly 
on  the  lower  third  of  the  cone,  then  have  your  artificial  rain;  is  it 
not  likely  that  the  sponge  would  serve  as  a  sort  of  filter  and  hold  a 
lareg  proportion  of  the  lampblack,  and  the  water  would  not  be  so 
discolored  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  That  is  so,  but  I  would  question,  if  you  may 
permit  me,  the  applicability  to  the  case.  This  lower  land  is  not  a 
sponge,  but  it  is,  as  I  have  explained,  impervious,  relatively,  and  is 
soft  enough  so  that  it  can  be  removed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  the  advocates  who  have  come  before  us  have 
compared  a  forest  to  a  sponge.  That  is  the  reason  I  used  the  illus- 
tration, and  my  application  of  it  was  this :  That  with  the  forest  sponge 
upon  the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountain,  any  erosion  from  the  upper 
slopes  was  much  more  likely  to  be  retained  and  held  and  not  to  get 
into  the  streams  than  if  the  upper  slopes  should  be  protected  and  the 
lower  slopes  left  bare,  because  then  when  erosion  begins  there  is  not 
anything  to  filter  the  water,  and  it  carries  its  load  of  soil  into  the 
stream.  My  observation  through  that  country  has  been  that  erosion 
always  takes  place,  if  the  lower  slope  is  bare,  no  matter  what  the 
declivity  may  be,  and  no  matter  whether  the  upper  slope  is  covered 
or  not.  It  does  not  Always  take  place  if  the  upper  slope  is  bare, 
while  the  lower  slope  is  left  covered. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  would  not  dissent  from  that.  I  did  misunder- 
stand. I  feel  I  am  taking  too  long  a  time,  but  I  would  like  to  put 
the  actual  conditions  before  the  committee.  The  cone  does  not  cover 
the  case,  because  the  mountains  are  not  cones.  The  mountains  are 
mainly  flat-topped  ridges  and  valleys.  Supposing  this  to  be  a  moun- 
tain [illustrating].  The  condition  is  represented  by  that  kind  of  a 
curve.  You  start  with  a  flat  top,  in  that  way,  and  you  go  down  the 
curve,  getting  steeper  and  steeper.  The  Hogarth  line  of  beauty  rep- 
resents the  curve  of  the  valley  to  the  top  of  the  mountain.  I  would 
quite  agree  with  the  chairman  of  the  committee  that  this  part  away 
up  here  would  not  be  the  part  that  is  most  eroded,  because  the  streams 
have  not  gathered  sufficient  volume,  nor  would  the  valley  lands,  which 
would  be  this  belt  in  between,  where  the  streams  have  gathered  suffi- 
cient volume  to  become  powerful  and  where  the  slope  is  steep.  If  you 
premise  here  a  belt,  the  forest  being  down  here,  it  will  in  a  measure 
stop  and  check  the  work  of  erosion  that  is  going  on  higher  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  being  true,  does  it  not  follow  that  if  you 
are  going  to  protect  the  hills,  and  in  that  way  protect  the  streams 
from  silting  up,  you  must  keep  the  forest  cover  on  the  intermediate 
slopes  that  vou  speak  of,  rather  than  on  the  upper  slopes? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  that  is  true,  the  suggestion  which  has  always 
been  made  before  this  committee,  and  which  is  the  whole  burden  of 
the  report  from  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  last  year  on  this  ques- 
tion, that  we  must  preserve  the  upper  slopes,  has  proceeded  upon  a 
mistaken  hypothesis? 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  21 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Of  course,  as  I  understand  it,  this  bill  does  not  des- 
ignate the  particular  lines  to  be  selected.  It  is  to  be  supposed  that 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  in  case*  the  bill  is  passed,  would  have 
that  selection  made  by  men  who  best  understand  the  forestry  and 
erosion,  and  therefore,  we  think,  would  select  the  lands  which,  upon 
the  whole,  are  best  adapted  to  this  end.  I  perhaps  would  not  put  it 
so  strongly  as  the  chairman  and  say  the  lower  slopes,  but  I  would  say, 
on  the  general  principle  which  you  have  in  mind,  that  this  interme- 
diate area,  which  combines  volume  of  water  and  steepness  of  slope,  is 
the  most  crucial  and  dangerous  area,  and  it  would  be  very  greatly 
aggravated  and  might  be  worse  farther  down  here  were  the  forest 
removed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  area  which  you  speak  of  as  the  crucial 
area  is  crucial  right  now  because  it  has  been  cleared  and  is  used  as 
farming  land  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  A  part  of  it  is  crucial  on  that  account,  but  there 
is  a  lower  part  that  has  not  been  cleared.  These  steeper  slopes  have 
not  been  cleared. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  to  be  sure,  there  are  places  where  the  crucial 
slopes  have  not  been  cleared;  but  the  ones  we  are  speaking  of  now, 
those  having  the  effect  on  streams — are  those  which  are  being  used  or 
have  been  used  for  farming  purposes? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  So,  if  we  are  going  to  take  possession  of  them,  we 
must  dispossess  men  who  are  using  them  for  farming  purposes? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  answer  yes  in  every  case  in  which  land  upon 
the  whole  is  so  badly  located  that  it  can  not  be  maintained  as  a 
farm  successfully,  and  is  better  adapted  to  forestry  than  to  farming. 
That  is  the  practice  we  have  in  Wisconsin.  The  commission  goes 
to  work  there  and  we  use  our  best  judgment.  We  say,  "  Is  this  par- 
ticular tract  better  adapted  to  agriculture  or  forestry?"  and  studying 
that  particular  tract,  if  we  consider  its  soil,  slope,  and  everything 
are  better  adapted  to  agriculture  than  to  forestry,  we  sell  it  for  agri- 
cultural purposes  and  use  the  money  to  buy  land  suitable  for  forestry 
purposes.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  land,  by  its  location,  by  its 
character,  is  better  adapted,  upon  the  whole,  to  serve  the  State  as 
forest  than  as  farm,  we  change  it  into  forest,  even  if  it  be  a  poor 
farm,  and  we  are  doing  that  thing  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  do  that  where  the  land  does  not  belonff 
to  anybody  who  is  making  a  home  on  it,  but  do  you  not  apprehend 
a  little  difficulty  in  securing  the  land  that  you  would  have  to  acquire 
from  people  who  have  lived  on  it,  and  perhaps  their  fathers  before 
them,  for  several  generations? 

Doctor  VAX  HISE.  We  do  not  pay  any  attention  to  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  obliged  to  pay  attention  to  it. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  It  seems  to  me,  of  course,  that  the  interests  of 
the  State  and  the  nation  are  superior  to  those  of  the  individual. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Pardon  me.  We  must  bear  in  mind  all  the  time 
our  responsibilities  as  legislators;  and  would  you  recommend  that 
this  committee  favorably  report  any  measure  which,  for  its  successful 
carrying  forward,  must  take  with  it  the  authority  of  some  govern- 
ment official  to  determine  whether  a  given  tract  of  land  is  more  valu- 
able for  forest  purposes  than  for  farm  purposes,  and  if  he  decides 
that  it  is  more  valuable  for  forest  than  for.  farm,  give  him  the 


22  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

authority,  under  eminent  domain  or  some  power  of  condemnation, 
to  compel  the  owner  of  it*  to  part  with  it  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  answer  yes  to  that,  unqualifiedly. 

Mr.  STANLEY.  Excuse  me,  Doctor,  do  you  proceed  upon  the  theory 
that  the  Federal  Government  would  have  the  same  right  and  has  the 
same  jurisdiction  to  take  the  land  by  a  process  of  eminent  domain, 
belonging  to  private  individuals,  on  account  of  its  better  adaptability 
to  forestry  than  to  farming,  that  a  state  government  would  have  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  If  necessary  to  protect  the  equable  flow  in  the 
waterways,  and  therefore  to  protect  navigation  effectively  and 
cheaply,  and  if  necessary  in  order  that  the  harbors  shall  not  be  filled 
up,  if  necessary  for  watershed  for  that  purpose,  then  I  say  yes. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  You  speak  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  purchasing  land 
and  setting  it  aside  for  forest  purposes.  Has  the  State  expended  any 
money  for  this  purpose  which  has  not  been  obtained  from  the  sale  of 
state  lands  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  No  large  amount.  We  have  a  small  appropria- 
tion which  we  can  use  for  that  purpose  and  can  invest  in  tax  lands, 
but  we  are  going  to  ask  a  much  larger  amount  for  that  purpose,  and 
we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  we  shall  secure  a  larger  amount,  but 
our  start  was  on  the  basis  of  the  state  lands  going  to  the  commission, 
with  the  power  to  sell  and  to  buy,  using  the  money  which  we  obtained 
from  selling  to  purchase. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  Has  there  been  a  criticism  of  that  process  of  procedure  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Substantially  none,  because  we  have  been  ex- 
tremely careful  to  dispose  of  the  lands,  which  really  are  agricultural. 
We  have  tried  to  interpret  that  feature  of  the  act  fairlv.  If  it  was  a 
very  reasonably  clear  case  that  the  land  was  really  agricultural  land, 
and  a  man  said,  "  I  want  that  land  for  agricultural  purposes,"  and  our 
experts  showed  it  was  really  adapted  to  agriculture,  we  would  adver- 
tise and  sell  it  to  him,  even  if  it  involved  a  special  advertisement  and 
sale. 

(Thereupon,  at  11.50  o'clock  a.  m.,  the  committee  took  a  recess  until 
1.30  o'clock  p.  m.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
Wednesday,  December  9,  1908. 

The  committee  met  at  1.30  o'clock  p.  m.,  Hon.  Charles  F.  Scott 
(chairman)  presiding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  the  members  of  the  committee  are  not  here, 
but,  as  the  record  is  printed,  they  will  have  access  to  it,  and  I  do  not 
wish  to  delay  the  hearing  any  longer.  May  we  ask  to  have  Doctor 
Van  Hise  take  the  stand  again  for  a  few  moments  only? 

Governor  GUILD.  Possibly,  to  save  a  little  time  and  answer  some  of 
the  questions  that  have  been  put  forward,  it  may  be  frankly  admitted 
at  once  that  the  acquisition  of  forest  reserves  would  dispossess  some 
mountain  farmers  of  their  farms,  but  thereby  not  only  is  the  infi- 
nitely greater  number  of  farms  lower  down  on  the  river,  which 
would  otherwise  be  sterile,  rendered  fertile  by  water,  but  thousands 
of  times  the  number  of  people  can  be  supported  in  cotton  mills  run 
by  the  water  power  thereby  obtained  than  could  be  supported  on  the 
few  farms  which  it  might  be  necessary  to  have  taken. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  23 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  question  of  the  form  of  mountains.  I  believe 
that  matter  is  thoroughly  discussed  in  the  proceedings  of  the  con- 
servation commission,  which  will  be  available  to  you,  and,  as  I  under- 
stand this  bill,  it  is  a  flexible  bill,  by  which  whatever  portion  of  land 
that  would  be  necessary  might  be  taken,  and  in  some  instances  it 
might  be  the  extreme  tops  of  the  mountains  and  in  others  the  inter- 
mediate slopes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Governor,  it  is  true,  as  you  say,  that  the  bill  which 
was  passed  by  the  Senate  is  a  flexible  bill,  and  yet  the  reports  which 
have  come  from  the  Forestry  Bureau,  and  practically  all  of  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  made  before  this  committee,  have  urged  that 
it  is  the  upper  slopes  of  the  mountains  that  need  to  be  protected, 
leaving  the  inference,  of  course,  that  the  lower  slopes,  which  are  now 
cleared  off  for  farming,  are  not  necessary  to  the  success  of  this  project. 
It  rather  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  if  the  fact  should  be  developed 
that  it  is  the 'lower  slopes  and  not  the  upper  slopes  that  are  important 
to  the  project,  our  confidence  in  the  judgment  of  those  to  whom  we 
have  looked  for  guidance  in  this  matter  must  be  severely  shaken;  and 
furthermore,  if  it  should  be  developed  that  it  is  the  lower  slopes  and 
not  the  upper  slopes  that  must  be  safeguarded,  it  will  be  at  once 
conceded  that  the  cost  of  the  project  will  be  enormously  increased. 
We  have  been  urged  to  pass  this  measure  upon  the  theory  that  be- 
cause it  is  the  inaccessible  upper  slopes  that  are  needed  we  can  get 
them  cheaply,  but  we  know  that  if  it  should  prove  to  be  the  acces- 
sible lower  slopes  that  are  necessary,  those  can  not  be  gotten  cheaply, 
and,  you  see,  it  makes  a  vast  difference. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  quite  understand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  was  the  point  of  my  inquiry. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  quite  understand  it,  sir,  and  it  was  a  fair  in- 
quiry, unquestionably;  but  the  point  I  wished  to  establish  was,  that  it 
is  practically  impossible,  as  I  understand  it,  to  establish  an  absolutely 
hard  and  fast  rule  that  in  no  cases  must  lower  slopes  be  taken. 
Furthermore,  one  other  point  I  wished  to  put  in  was  in  regard  to  the 
constitutionality  which  was  put  here,  that  eight  Southern  States  and 
two  Northern  States,  Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  have  already  passed 
enabling  acts  in  regard  to  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  by  which  the 
State  practically  invites  the  National  Government  to  come  into  those 
States  and  exercise  that  right  for  the  purpose  of  forest  reserve. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Now,  Governor,  if  that  is  the  case,  and  there  is  a 
general  disposition  among  the  States  that  are  covered  by  these  moun- 
tain regions  in  question,  why  is  it  not  just  as  feasible  for  the  Govern- 
ment to  come  in  and  cooperate  with  those  States  and  exercise  the  right 
of  supervision  instead  of  purchasing  the  land? 

Governor  GUILD.  I  would  state  that  the  governor  of  California, 
who  has  had  some  practical  experience  on  just  that  point,  will  answer 
that  question  later. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  It  seems  to  me  if  we  would  have  a  cooperative  ar- 
rangement between  the  Government  and  the  States,  or  desire  to  co- 
operate, we  might  find  a  solution  in  that  way  and  not  purchase  the 
land. 

Governor  GUILD.  The  first  part  of  your  proposition  I  think  I  have 
already  answered,  or  at  least  I  have  tried  to,  by  saying  that  the  States 
are  perfectly  willing  to  cooperate,  and  are  cooperating,  and  in  our 
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  for  example,  where  we  are  asking 


24  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

for  no  reserve  land,  we  are  cooperating  on  the  lower  reaches  of  the 
rivers  and  spending  our  money  to  a  certain  extent;  but,  as  I  stated 
before,  the  State  can  not  possibly  out  of  its  limited  treasury  be  ex- 
pected to  provide  for  the  large  tract  of  land  that  would  be  required 
at  the  headwaters  of  the  rivers. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  I  fully  agree  with  you  in  that,  but  through  a  coopera- 
tive arrangement,  the  States  being  willing,  could  not  the  Government 
exercise  the  right  of  supervision  in  those  States  and  obviate  the 
necessity  of  purchase? 

Governor  GUILD.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  possible,  sir,  to  obviate 
the  necessity  of  expenditure  from  the  National  Treasury. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  You  do  not  understand  my  question. 

Governor  GUILD.  Possibly  not. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  I  did  not  mean  that  the  expense  should  all  be  shoul- 
dered upon  the  States.  I  meant  that  the  Government  should  share  its 
proportion ;  but  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  purchase,  permit  the  forest 
lands  to  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  present  owners  and  permit  the 
Government  to  go  in  there  and  cooperate  with  the  States,  with  their 
permission,  which  I  understand  would  be  necessary,  and  then  we 
would  exercise  the  right  of  supervision,  the  Government  bearing  a 
portion  of  the  expense,  or,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  would  not 
object  to  its  bearing  all  of  it,  and  accomplish  the  same  end,  but 
obviate  the  necessity  of  purchase. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  do  not  think  that  could  be  obviated,  sir.  We 
have  had  practical  experience  in  my  own  Commonwealth,  and  we 
have  actually  bought  out  of  the  state  treasury  tracts  of  forest  lands 
and  established  them  as  reserves  in  the  Commonwealth,  and  mere 
supervision  of  the  land  has  not  seemed  to  be  possible.  But  if  you 
will  pardon  me  for  a  moment,  sir,  we  were  in  the  midst  of  some 
expert  testimony,  and  I  am  afraid  we  are  getting  off  the  track. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  The  reason  I  asked  the  question  was  because  it  bore 
directly  on  your  statement. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  thank  you  very  much. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.   C.   R.  VAN  HISE— Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  if  you  will  permit  me,  I  would  be  glad  to 
ask  you  two  or  three  more  questions  developing  facts  along  the  line 
we  were  discussing  before  the  adjournment.  When  a  slope  has  been 
cleared  and  farmed  until  it  is  so  eroded  as  to  become  useless  for 
farming,  what  becomes  of  it  under  present  conditions? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Under  present  conditions  it  does  and  would,  in 
most  humid  areas,  reclothe  itself  in  time  with  vegetation,  and  finally 
with  timber,  but  that  frequently  will  not  happen  until  the  disinte- 
grated material  is  practically  all  gone  down  into  the  streams  and 
there  has  been  very  extensive  wash.  But  in  general  it  is  true — I  do 
not  wish  to  in  any  way  avoid,  the  difficulties — that  in  these  humid 
areas,  if  there  is  any  soil  left,  they"  trill  reclothe  themselves  with 
vegetation. 

Governor  GUILD.  After  how  many  years?     How  long  does  it  take? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Of  course  it  depends  on  whether  you  mean  just 
the  shrubbery  or  mean  trees. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  mean  trees. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  25 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Of  course  many  years  for  trees,  and  they  have 
very  much  less  favorable  conditions  than  the  first  time  because  of  the 
fact  that  they  would  have  bare  rock  and  a  very  scanty  soil  instead  of 
abundant  soil. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  does  it  take  to  bring  back  the  cover  that 
will  prevent  erosion  and  retard  a  run-off. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Usually,  if  there  are  no  fires  and  if  the  streams 
are  not  too  powerful,  it  will  have  begun  to  get  a  tangle  of  under- 
brush within  five  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  say  right  there  that  I  have  seen  a 
great  many  slopes  where  the  erosion  has  been  very  bad  that  were  com- 
pletely reforested,  so  far  as  the  creation  of  a  cover  to  prevent  further 
erosion  was  concerned,  in  much  less  than  five  .years.  Then  there  is 
an  inevitable  cycle,  is  there  not,  beginning  with  the  forest  and  end- 
ing with  the  forest,  with  a  little  period  of  farming  in  between  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  There  is  where  I  should  not  accept  the  state- 
ment. There  Is-  an  inevitable  cycle  if  we  take  lands  for  agricultural 
purposes  that  never  should  have  been  taken  for  such  purposes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  we  are  assuming  conditions  to  be  as  they  are. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  But  if  lands  are  not  taken  for  agricultural  pur- 
purposes  which  should  not  have  been,  there  is  not  an  inevitable  cycle ; 
there  can  be  continual  preservation  of  the  disintegrated  surface  and 
continual  forest  cover. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  the  point  I  have  in  mind  is  simply  this: 
It  has  been  brought  out  that  the  trouble  we  are  now  suffering,  has 
come  from  the  clearing  of  the  land  for  farming  purposes  and  not 
from  the  lumbering  operations. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Partly  from  each,  but  more  largely  from  farm- 
ing. 


The  CHAIRMAN.  More  largely  from  farming. 
Doctor  VAN  HISE.  That  is  entirely  true. 


The  CHAIRMAN.  More  largely  from  farming  than  from  lumbering. 
That  being  true,  it  has  occurred  to  some  of  us  that  the  situation  was 
one  which  carried  its  own  remedy;  that  even  if  the  lower  slopes  were 
cleared  off,  as  they  have  been,  when  they  become  useless  for  farming 
purposes  there  is  nothing  the  owner  can  do  but  abandon  them,  and 
when  they  are  abandoned  they  are  again  covered,  and  we  can  not  see 
what  else  the  Government  could  do  if  it  owned  the  land  than  to  let 
nature  take  its  course,  just  as  it  does  now;  for  to  go  and  artificially 
replant  such  areas  would,  of  course,  be  prohibitive  as  to  cost. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  If  I  might  interrupt  you  right  there — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  no  interruption. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  So  far  as  these  lands  have  been  deforested,  and 
so  far  as  they  have  been  applied  to  agricultural  purposes  when  they 
should  not  have  been,  there  is  nothing  to  do  but  to  get  them  back  to 
forests  as  rapidly  as  we  can  by  the  best  means  we  can,  but  there  are 
very  extensive  areas  in  the  southern  mountains  in  which  that  process 
is  now  going  on,  and  which  will  continue,  and  it  will  continue  to  go 
on  and  continue  to  dump  this  great  quantity  of  material  in  the 
streams  and  in  the  harbors  if  you  do  not  stop  the  deforestation,  which 
should  not  be  permitted.  We  can  stop  that  present  damage  if  we 
will.  Great  damage,  has  been  done.  These  areas  have  been  defor- 
ested. There  has  been  serious  wash.  These  areas  which  never 


26  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

should  have  been  denuded  of  their  forests  ought  to  be  restored  to 
forests,  and  no  more  area  similar  to  that  should  have  the  forest  re- 
moved from  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  a  summary  of  data  submitted  for  the  use  of 
the  forest  section  in  the  National  Conservation  Commission,  as  you 
will  remember,  there  occurs  this  statement: 

The  eastern  mountain  region  lies  east  of  the  Prairie  States,  in  which  the 
planting  of  trees  for  the  production  of  timber  is  of  much  more  importance  than 
for  the  production  of  stream  flow  or  crops. 

Do  you  concur  in  that? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  would  not  concur  in  that  for  this  southeast- 
ern part.  It  might  be  true,  if  that  means  the  entire  eastern  part  of 
the  United  States,  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains ;  that  might  possibly 
be  true.  But  as  applied  to  this  southeastern  area,  which  is  under 
discussion,  I  would  dissent  from  it  altogether. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  statement  also  occurs  in  this  same  summary : 

The  Southern  States  contain  about  12,000,000  acres  upon  which  natural  repro- 
duction is  insufficient  or  lacking,  but  ui>on  which  adequate  fire  protection  will, 
In  the  main,  restore  good  forest  conditions — 

And  talking  with  citizens  of  North  Carolina  and  Tennessee — and, 
I  may  say,  very  enthusiastic  advocates  of  this  project — they  stated  to 
me  personally  that  they  found  it  was  altogether  a  question  of  fire; 
that  if  fire  could  be  kept  out  of  the  Appalachian  Mountains  the 
slopes  would  never  become  sufficiently  denuded  to  be  a  menace  to 
the  prosperity  of  the  country.  Do  you  agree  with  that  statement? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  No;  not  that  it  would  altogether.  If  you  say 
that  the  factor  of  fire  is  an  extremely  important  one  on  keeping  this 
clothing,  I  say  yes,  but  that  it  would  be  alone  sufficient  to  keep  the 
fire  out,  I  would  not  agree  to  it,  because  the  removal  of  these  areas 
on  these  slopes  which  have  never  been  made  into  forests  is  another 
factor,  and  out  of  that  factor  has  come  this  great  erosion,  or  if  not  the 
greatest  erosion  a  very  large  part  of  it.  Therefore  this  can  be  ac- 
complished by  a  number  of  things.  It  can  be  accomplished  by 
returning  to  forest  these  areas  which  should  never  have  been  cleared. 
It  can  be  accomplished  by  retaining  in  forest  those  areas  which  are 
better  adapted  to  the  forest  than  for  agricultural  purposes,  and  those 
two  together,  combined  with  the  prevention  of  fire,  will  solve  the 
question.  You  must  have  the  three — prevention  of  fire,  retention  as 
torests  of  those  areas  that  are  better  adapted  to  forests  than  to  agri- 
culture, and  restoration  to  forests  of  those  areas  which  never  ought 
to  have  been  denuded  of  their  timber. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  One  more  question.  Do  you  regard  the  statement 
which  has  been  presented  here  showing  the  high  and  low  water  sta- 
tistics for  such  rivers  as  of  any  scientific  value  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  That  general  statement  made  by  the  forestry 
commission,  of  course,  was  a  very  large  average  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  reason  I  questioned  the  value  of  the  statement 
is  because  it  covers  so  brief  a  period. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  It  is  a  very  general  statement,  but  it  so  happens 
that,  as  to  this  particular  southeastern  problem,  we  have  a  much 
closer  study  of  the  Tennessee.  It  so  happens  that  Mr.  Leighton  has 
given  all  his  time  for  four  months  in  studying  the  Tennessee  particu- 
larly, and  I  have  here  this  summary  of  the  results.  Mr.  Leighton,  if 


FOKEST    LANDS   FOE   THE    PEOTECTION    OF    WATEESHEDS.  27 

the  committee  desires,  can  bring  before  you  the  evidence  which  shows 
the  results,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Tennessee,  which  I  have  gone  over 
somewhat  carefully,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  a  strictly  scientific  paper. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  information  he  furnishes  shows  conclusively 
that  in  the  past  twelve  years,  as  compared  with  the  previous  twelve 
years,  floods  have  been  more  frequent  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
flood-producing  storms,  and  that  is  the  point  involved,  by  18  per 
cent  or  thereabouts.  This  is  the  one  stream,  it  so  happens,  upon 
which  there  has  been  a  strictly  scientific  detailed  study  and  analysis 
of  the  facts. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  theory,  of  course,  is  that  the  forest  cover 
constitutes  a  sort  of  sponge  that  absorbs  the  water,  and  in  that  way 
prevents  flood. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  not  true  that  when  this  forest  cover,  this 
sponge,  becomes  thoroughly  saturated  any  excess  water  immediately 
runs  out? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  No;  even  then  the  excess  water  will  gather  in 
the  needles  and  the  leaves,  and  they  will  hold  quite  a  lot  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  instance,  if  I  had  a  slate  here  instead  of  this 
blotting  paper,  any  water  I  dropped  upon  it  would  run  off  imme- 
diately? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  take  this  blotting  paper  and  drop  water  upon  it 
slowly,  and  no  water  runs  off.  I  could  continue  that  for  quite  a 
while.  But  suppose,  first,  that  I  immerse  the  blotting  paper  and 
saturate  it  thoroughly,  then  if  I  drop  water  on  it  would  it  not 
run  off? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  It  would  run  off  slowly,  and  that  is  the  great 
point.  The  average  run-off  is  the  same.  There  is  no  claim  by  us 
that  there  would  not  be  the  same  average  run-off  if  all  the  forest  was 
watered,  but  what  I  say  is  that  instead  of  that  being  made  homo- 
geneous, so  that  this  is  a  stream  free  from  sediment,  it  will  be  a  vast 
torrent  carrying  down  gravel  and  silt  at  flood  time,  and  there  will 
be  practically  no  stream  at  the  other  times  of  the  year.  So  that  this 
flat  surface  is  to  equalize  the  flow,  and  so  make  it  valuable  for  water 
power — more  valuable  for  water  power  than  for  navigation,  and  so 
forth. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  realize  that  an  ordinary  rainfall  would  be  ab- 
sorbed by  the  humus  and  would  be  given  out  slowly  later  on,  but 
«very  flood  comes  from  an  excessive  rainfall  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Otherwise  there  would  not  be  any  flood.  When 
that  condition  occurs,  when  your  humus  is  absolutely  saturated,  is  it 
not  true  that  if  the  rain  keeps  on  falling  there  will  be  a  flood?  And 
is  it  not  true  that  we  have  had  floods  in  the  rivers  from  time  im- 
memorial? Is  it  not  true  in  Oregon  and  in  Washington  that  some 
of  the  severest  floods  that  have  ever  occurred  have  come  while  the 
forest  cover  was  perfect? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  It  is  entirely  true  that  if  the  rain  is  so  excessive, 
if  there  is  a  flood-producing  rain  away  beyond  the  capacity  of  the 
forest  to  absorb  it,  that  even  with  a  virghT  forest  we  still  may  have 
a  disastrous  flood,  although  it  will  not  be  usually  so  ?ilt  laden  a  flood 


28  FOREST   LANDS    FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

as  under  these  circumstances ;  but  the  point  I  hold,  and  it  seems  to- 
me  Mr.  Leighton  in  his  report  clearly  shows,  is  that  the  same  number 
of  flood-producing  rains  under  conditions  of  the  removal  of  the 
forests  produce  more  floods  than  what  would  occur  were  the  forests- 
kept  there,  and  the  rapidly  increasing  percentage,  18  per  cent  in 
the  last  twelve  years,  as  compared  with  the  previous  twelve  years,, 
due  to  the  difference  in  denudation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  familiar  with  a  paper  written  by  Col. 
H.  M.  Chittenden  and  read  before  the  American  Society  of  Civil 
Engineers  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  No;  I  am  not.  I  have  heard  of  it,  but  I  have 
never  seen  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Colonel  Chittenden  has  been  studying  this  ques- 
tion for  twenty  or  thirty  years. 

Governor  GUILD.  If  you  will  pardon  me  at  this  moment,  Mr. 
Swain  is  very  familiar  with  that,  and  if  perhaps  Doctor  Van  Hise 
is  not  familiar  with  it,  we  had  better  let  the  expert  who  is  familiar 
with  it  answer  your  questions  in  regard  to  it. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  The  floods  are  not  all  produced  by  excessive  rains. 
In  the  snow  regions  the  floods  are  produced  by  excessive  melting  of 
the  snow  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes;  causing  an  excessive  flow  of  water.  In 
snow  areas,  where  there  are  heavy  snowfalls,  that  is  a  factor.  I 
have  not  said  very  much  about  that,  because  it  is  not  a  very  important 
factor  in  reference  to  these  southern  mountains. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  It  would  be  a  factor  in  the  White  Mountains? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes;  it  is  a  very  important  factor  in  the  White- 
Mountains. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Would  you  believe  it  to  be  true  that  a  heavily 
forested  watershed  in  a  northern  latitude,  like  New  Hampshire,  might 
give  a  result  of  more  disastrous  floods  that  an  open  watershed? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Do  you  mean  the  one  that  is  not  timbered? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  one  that  is  not  heavily  timbered. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  would  say,  as  far  as  the  facts  are  analyzed 
it  bears  the  other  way;  that  even  where  there  are  snow  areas  the 
number  of  floods  is  less.  Although  no  one  stream  is  accurately  ana- 
lyzed in  the  same  way  that  the  Tennessee  is  analyzed,  yet  these  tables 
show  that  the  same  thing  has  occurred,  taking  the  evidence  as  a 
whole. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  a  matter  of  pure  reasoning,  we  know  that  in  a 
heavily  timbered  watershed  the  wind  is  broken  and  the  snow  falls 
practically  on  a  level  all  the  way  through,  and  by  the  shade  of  the- 
trees  it  is  held  there  a  long  time,  until  the  air  becomes  warm.  Then 
the  warm  rains  come  along  and  wash  it  all  away  at  once. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  That  is  comparatively  rare. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  it  not  happen  every  winter  and  every  spring? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  The  rain  has  to  be  a  very  long-continued  and 
abundant  rain.  One  of  the  greatest  floods  described  by  John  Muir 
occurred  under  those  conditions.  That  is  a  possibility;  it  is  not  only 
a  possibility,  but  it  actually  occurs.  But  on  the  whole  the  precipita- 
tion in  the  form  of  snow  serves  to  equalize*  the  flow.  In  the  region 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  also  in  the  great  valleys  of  California,, 
it  is  a  maxim:  "  There  is  a  good  snowfall;  we  will  have  a  good  year 
for  irrigation." 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  29 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is,  the  unprotected  slopes  of  mountains  allow 
the  snow  to  be  piled  in  the  canyons? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  And  the  trees  produce  the  same  effect  exactly 
as  the  canyons. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  White  Mountain  region  is  not 
•entirely  wooded ;  there  are  open  spaces  and  then  wooded  spaces. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Rocky  spaces. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  If  you  are  familiar  with  that  section  you  know  that 
very  often  the  snow  is  entirely  melted  away  in  the  open  spaces  when  it 
may  be  a  foot  or  two  deep  in  the  wooded  spaces.  Therefore  if  the 
timber  or  wood  had  been  cut  off  in  those  wooded  places  it  would  have 
all  gone  off  at  the  same  time  and  produced  much  more  water  at  one 
time  than  is  produced  under  present  conditions  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Exactly.  May  I  make  one  statement?  I  have 
tried  to  answer  these  questions  specifically  and  concretely  without 
giving  their  qualifications  and  modifications.  So,  in  fairness  to  my- 
self, I  think  I  ought  to  be  permitted  to  make  one  qualifying  statement. 
I  was  asked  the  question  if  I  were  allowed  to  select  an  area,  and  if  I 
could  only  have  one,  which  would  I  select?  I  said  under  those  cir- 
cumstances the  lower  part  of  the  steeper  slopes  would  probably  be 
the  most  important.  However,  I  would  not  desire  the  committee  to 
conclude  therefore  that  I  do  not  believe  it  is  necessary  to  conserve 
these  steep  upslopes  to  the  flat  tops,  because  they  are  the'  great  sponge 
which  holds  this  water  and  allows  it  to  come  down  through  springs 
and  equalize  the  flow.  That  is  to  say,  if  you  should  remove  this  top 
area,  supposing  this  is  one  of  the  regions,  there  would  be  destructive 
wash  and  floods  here  which  would  carry  the  material  down.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  only  safe  procedure,  the  only  possible  procedure  in  the 
Southern  Appalachians,  with  reference  to  the  good  of  the  Nation,  is 
for  the  Nation  and  the  States  and  individuals  by  some  system  of  co- 
operation to  conserve  practically  all  the  slopes  which  are  steeper  than 
those  which  should  be  used  for  agricultural  purposes. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  In  the  final  analysis,  in  this  last  statement  you  have 
made,  you  would  be  governed  by  the  specific  conditions  surrounding 
«ach  case? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  would  be  so  governed  precisely,  if  you  ask  me 
what  I  should  do  provided  I  had  the  money  and  could  go  down  there 
•and  do  it.  In  making  a  careful  survey  of  all  the  States  my  idea 
would  be  to  pick  out  the  steep  slopes  in  which  there  had  been  some 
.iorest  removed,  perhaps.  I  would  get  the  headwaters  of  the  streams, 
<md  take  here  a  bunch  and  there  a  bunch  of,  say,  25,000  or  50,000  acres, 
where  the  injury  is  the  greatest  and  the  destruction  is  the  greatest, 
and  use  those  as  areas,  not  only  to  stop  the  wash  and  to  stop  the  flow, 
but  to  serve  as  educational  areas  for  individuals  and  States  both. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  This  proposition,  then,  resolves  itself  ultimately  in 
the  purchase  by  the  Government,  or  the  bringing  under  the  control  of 
the  Government  practically  all  of  that  area — that  is,  the  upper  re- 
gions, as  well  as  the  lower  regions — if  the  success  of  the  project  is 
•complete;  is  that  not  true? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  Yes.  "  Complete  "  is  a  perfect  word,  you  know. 
That  is  true,  before  all  this  destruction  is  stopped ;  yes. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Then,  of  course,  the  report  sent  to  the  committee 
by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  in  which  he  says  that  5,000,000  acres 
would  suffice,  is  merely  a  beginning,  and  before  we  got  through  we 


30  FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

would  have  to  bring  under  the  control  of  the  Government,  or  pur- 
chase by  the  Government,  practically  all  of  the  75,000,000  acres  that 
is  described  in  that  report? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  No;  I  do  not  agree  to  that  statement,  for  this 
reason :  I  have  had  the  experience  myself  with  the  great  power  of 
example  in  educational  influence,  and  I  have  had  to  do  with  trying 
to  get  States  to  cooperate  in  this  very  problem — Wisconsin,  Michi- 
gan, and  Minnesota — and  we  have  made  great  progress  up  there,  and 
have  had  a  demonstration  lesson.  The  action  of  Wisconsin  has  been 
of  great  help  in  getting  Minnesota  and  Michigan  to  move  in  the  same 
direction,  and  I  think,  as  I  stated  at  the  outset,  that  this  is  so  large  a 
movement  that  the  Government,  being  vitally  interested  in  the  water- 
ways, vitally  interested  in  the  harbors,  ought  to  do  what  it  can. 
Then  the  States  can  go  forward  and  do  what  they  can,  and  the 
Government  and  the  States  must  cooperate  with  reference  to  fire 
patrol,  and  then  public  pressure  must  make  the  individuals  feel  their 
public  responsibility  and  make  them  handle  their  holdings  as  public 
trusts. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Granting  all  that  to  be  true,  must  we  not  banish  all 
hope  that  this  can  be  accomplished  by  the  purchase  of  5,000,000  acres 
in  the  Southern  Appalachians  ? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  If  you  mean  that  the  purchase  of  5,000,000 
acres  in  the  Southern  Appalachians  will  prevent  altogether  this  de- 
structive wash,  it  is  wholly  inadequate.  However,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  with  the  purchase  of  5,000,000  acres  to  serve  as  examples  to  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Georgia,  and  Alabama  we  will  get 
those  States  to  go  to  work  and  do  their  part,  and  it  will  bring  pressure 
on  individuals  to  do  their  part. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Then  I  understand  that  your  idea  is  that  if  the 
Government  purchases  these  5,000,000  acres'  in  blocks,  that  that  will 
encourage  the  States  to  come  in  and  buy  other  parts? 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  My  hope  is  that ;  yes. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  My  understanding  was  that  it  was  a  mammoth  un- 
dertaking. We  have  been  lead  to  believe  that  the  5,000,000  acres 
was  sufficient,  and  we  have  labored  under  the  impression  that  we 
should  simply  take  care  of  these  upper  watersheds.  Now  it  seems  to 
be  developed  that  it  is  of  greater  importance  to  protect  the  interme- 
diate sheds  and  a  portion  of  the  lower  sheds.  This  report  of  the 
Secretary,  where  it  refers  to  the  5,000,000  acres,  simply  covers  the 
upper  sheds,  so  that  these  intermediate  slopes  and  the  lower  slopes 
are  not  taken  into  account  at  all  in  his  estimate  of  5,000,000  acres. 

Doctor  VAN  HISE.  I  confess  a  lack  of  familiarity  with  the  details 
and  recommendations  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  and  I  did  not 
understand  that  there  were  any  definite  lands  recommended.  I 
understood  that  if  there  was  money  appropriated  for  the  purchase 
of  the  5,000,000  acres  experts  would  go  and  find  out  where  they  had 
best  be  purchased,  leaving  them  free  to  select  the  most  pressing  and 
crucial  a  pens,  which  will,  on  the  whole,  do  the  most  good  in  the  way 
of  educating  the  States  and  individuals  in  the  way  of  preventing 
erosion.  I  fear  that  I  have  taken  too  much  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  at  our  request,  and  we  are  very  much 
obliged  to  you.  Governor,  will  you  allow  me  to  ask  you  a  question 
before  you  introduce  anyone  else? 

Governor  GUILD.  Most  certainly. 


FOKEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  31 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Because  I  know  you  have  considered  this  from  a 
broad  standpoint. 

Governor  GUILD.  I  have  tried  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  heard  Doctor  Van  Hise  express  the 
opinion  that  what  the  Government  might  do  would  be  to  go  into 
these  States  and  buy  tracts  of  from  25,000  to  50,000  acres  as  a  sort 
of  object  lesson  to  the  people? 

Governor  GUILD.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  ever  taken  into  consideration  the  view 
that  would  be  held  locally  upon  the  proposition  of  taking  that  much 
property  off  the  local  tax  rolls — what  might  happen  to  some  one 
county,  perhaps,  where  50,000  acres  were  thus  sequestered? 

Governor  GUILD.  Most  certainly.  Although  it  might  take  a  certain 
amount  off  a  local  tax  roll,  it  would  add  so  much  to  the  land  in  the 
other  place,  which  would  thereby  be  improved  by  the  water  supply 
and  by  water  power  that  the  one  would  much  more  than  offset  the 
other,  we  think. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  parties  whose  assess- 
ment was  increased  would  think  it  was  rather  unfair  that  in  order 
that  the  Government  could  have  this  property  for  reservation  they 
would  have  to  pay  more  taxes? 

Governor  GUILD.  I  think  the  best  answer  to  the  local  opposition  of 
States  to  which  you  refer  is  that  8  Southern  States  and  2  Northern 
States  have  already  requested  that  the  thing  be  done. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  perfectly  aware  of  that,  but  I  was  wondering 
whether  it  had  been  specifically  considered. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  Was  it  not  stated  before  us  last  year  that  the  Gov- 
ernment would  be  expected  to  share  the  profits  of  these  forests  with 
those  States,  or  find  some  other  way  to  compensate  them  ? 

Governor  GUILD.  I  was  unfortunately  unable  to  be  present  at  the 
hearing  of  last  year,  much  as  I  desire  to  be  here,  but  Mr.  Ayers 
understands  that  phase  of  the  question  and  has  been  present  at  all 
the  hearings,  and  I  will  call  upon  him,  if  you  please,  the  state  for- 
ester of  New  Hampshire. 

STATEMENT  OF  PHILIP  W.  AYERS,  STATE  FORESTER  OF  NEW 
HAMPSHIRE. 

Mr.  AYERS.  I  merely  desire  to  answer  the  point  raised  by  the  chair- 
man, that  the  bill  which  passed  the  Senate  proposes  that  these  re- 
serves in  the  eastern  mountains,  if  established,  shall  be  conducted  in 
exactly  the  same  way  as  the  western  reserves.  I  think  it  has  been 
decided  by  the  Forest  Service  to  be  a  fact  that  the  western  reserves 
turned  back  the  portion  of  the  incomes  in  which  those  counties  are 
located. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  understand  that  it  further  developed  in  these 
hearings  that  the  price  of  lands  now  having  workable  timber  upon 
them  would  be  so  high  that  nobody  would  advocate  their  purchase, 
including  the  timber,  and  that  the  best  that  could  be  expected  would 
be  that  we  could  buy  the  land  with  the  privilege  to  the  owner  of 
removing  the  merchantable  timber.  That  being  true,  of  course  we 
could  not  expect  to  get  any  revenue  until  the  second  growth  became 
available,  so  that  there  would  be  a  period  of  from  five  to  one  hundred 
years  before  a  return  could  be  possible. 


32  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Mr.  AYERS.  If  the  governor  will  permit  me,  as  far  as  the  White 
Mountains  are  concerned — and  I  am  familiar  with  the  White  Moun- 
tains— there  are  various  kinds  of  land  which  would  necessarily  be 
giving  a  return,  even  in  a  small  tract  of  25,000  acres.  Being  the  for- 
ester for  Dartmouth  College  and  having  under  my  personal  charge 
a  tract  of  26,000  acres,  I  know  that  even  though  that  has  been  cut 
over,  we  are  able  to  get  an  annual  revenue  of  from  ten  to  fifteen 
thousand  dollars  from  that  particular  cut-over  forest.  That  is  ex- 
actly what  we  want  to  do  in  other  places  of  the  White  Mountains.  If 
you  take  a  tract  as  large  as  25,000  acres  already,  there  is  certain  to  be 
mature  timber,  and  a  certain  part  of  that  revenue  will  go  to  the 
county. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  give  us  an  idea  of  the  price  that  land 
containing  that  timber  could  be  bought  for? 

Mr.  AYRES.  Land  in  the  White  Mountains  can  be  had,  according 
to  the  degree  to  which  it  is  cut  over,  some  more  and  some  less,  from 
$1  to  $20  per  acre. 

Governor  GUILD.  Before  going  further  with  the  hearing,  of  course 
it  is  thoroughly  understood  that  the  committee  is  seeking  for  infor- 
mation, and  therefore,  of  course,  the  examination  of  our  expert  wit- 
nesses has  become  a  necessity.  We  recognize  that,  but  unfortunately 
it  is  a  fact  that  thereby  a  number  of  prominent  representatives  of  the 
various  States  may  be  prevented  from  testifying  at  all,  and  I  should 
like  to  state,  as  a  part  of  the  record,  with  your  permission,  that  we 
expected  to  have  introduced  this  morning,  as  sympathizing  with  and 
behind  this  movement  and  asking  for  its  adoption,  Governor  Hoke 
Smith,  of  Georgia;  Governor  Martin  F.  Ansel,  of  South  Carolina; 
Governor  Kollin  S.  Woodruff,  of  Connecticut;  Governor  N.  C. 
Blanchard,  of  Louisiana ;  Governor  John  A.  Johnson,  of  Minnesota, 
and  President  George  E.  Barstow,  of  the  National  Irrigation  Con- 
gress. These  gentlemen  were  all  ready  to  speak  this  morning. 
Whether  it  will  be  possible  for  them  to  come  here  this  afternoon  I  do 
not  know,  but  I  am  sure  you  will  not  object  to  having  the  list  of  their 
names.  , 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  take  official  notice  that  those 
gentlemen  would  have  favored  this  measure  if  they  could  have  ap- 
peared before  us. 

Governor  GUILD.  Governor  Pardee,  of  California,  is  here,  and  I 
shall  call  upon  him  next  for  a  few  words. 

STATEMENT    OF   HON.    GEORGE    C.    PARDEE,    EX-GOVERNOR    OF 
CALIFORNIA. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Understand,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  that  my  name  will  be  entered  in  this  distinguished 
list,  not  because  it  is  distinguished,  but  because  I  am  here.  I  wish 
to  add  this  to  what  has  already  been  said:  I  know  of  no  way  by 
which  government  supervision,  be  it  state  or  national,  of  privately 
owned  lands  can  be  effectively  carried  out  along  the  lines  for  which 
this  bill  provides  in  all  cases.  If  the  forests  be  taken  when  they  are 
in  their  prime  and  before  they  have  been  cut  and  burned  over  and 
the  police  power  of  the  States  first,  and  then,  if  necessary,  of  the 
nation  thereafter,  be  invoked  to  preserve  them,  a  supervision  without 
public  ownership  might,  and  probably  would,  be  sufficient,  but  there 
are  many  places  in  my  own  State,  and  I  apprehend  the  same  thing 
applies  to  the  Appalachian  and  also  to  the  White  Mountain  regions, 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  33 

where  the  state  of  affairs  has  gone  beyond  that,  and  in  those  cases  I 
have  no  doubt  in  the  world  that  there  should  be  public  ownership; 
whether  of  the  States  or  of  the  nation  is  a  question  to  be  decided  by 
the  relative  powers  of  the  two  governments,  state  and  national,  to 
acquire  those  tracts  of  land.  My  own  State  has  done  something, 
other  States  are  doing  more,  toward  that  end.  But  I  apprehend  that 
you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  this  committee,  will  agree  with 
me  when  I  say  that  it  is  more  than  a  state  issue.  It  is  a  question 
which  applies  in  the  Appalachians,  to  California,  and  Oregon.  I 
believe  thoroughly  and  heartily,  gentleman  of  the  committee,  in  the 
question  of  cooperation  as  between  the  individual  States  and  the 
nation,  but  there  are  certain  occasions,  and"!  believe  that  those  have 
been  arising  in  the  Appalachians  and  also  in  the  White  Mountains — I 
know  they  have  arisen  in  my  own  State — where  it  is  not  a  question  of 
cooperation  between  the  Government  and  the  private  ownership,  but 
public  ownership,  either  of  the  State  or  of  the  nation,  shall  be 
acquired. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Will  you  describe  those  conditions,  Governor  ? 

Governor  PARDEE.  When  the  forests  have  been  cut  and  burned 
extensively,  where  great  waste  is  going  on,  where  the  streams  have 
filled  up,  where  the  harbors  at  the  mouths  of  those  streams  are  filling 
up  and  have  filled  up,  then  the  strong  arm  of  the  Government  should 
come  in,  either  of  the  State  or  of  the  nation,  and  take  charge  of  that 
affair  and  see  that  it  is  absolutely  stopped. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  May  I  ask  you  a  question? 

Governor  PARDEE.  A  dozen. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  I  take  it,  Governor,  that  all  of  those  who  favor  the 
preservation  of  these  forests  are  not  so  much  concerned  about  the 
means  as  about  the  end.  It  is  the  end  that  we  are  seeking  to  attain. 
That  is,  we  want  to  accomplish  the  preservation  of  the  forests  and  the 
uniformity  of  the  stream  flow,  rather  than  to  be  wedded  to  any  par- 
ticular method. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  It  is  the  end. 

Now,  t  then,  this  committee  has  been  led  to  believe  that  the  only 
manner  by  which  the  Government  can  either  supervise  or  purchase 
the  desired  land  is  under  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which 
gives  Congress  jurisdiction  over  commerce,  and  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee holds  that  the  only  lands  that  we  could  buy,  even  it  we  want  to 
go  out  to  purchase  lands,  would  be  those  lands  that  had  a  direct  bear- 
ing on  navigation,  and  that  other  lands  were  out  of  the  question.  I 
am  not  a  lawyer,  and  it  does  not  matter  to  me  whether  you  and  I 
agree  to  that  or  not,  but  that  is  the  opinion  they  have  handed  down. 
Inquiry  develops,  to  my  mind  at  any  rate,  this  fact,  that  if  the 
Government  can  go  and  buy  a  tract  of  land  for  the  purpose  of  aiding 
navigation  by  the  preservation  of  the  forests  on  the  rivers,  it  can  also 
go  in  under  the  same  constitutional  power  and  regulate  the  manner 
in  which  the  private  owners  shall  control  that  land,  so  far  as  it  has 
a  bearing  on  navigation,  and  that  the  same  constitutional  authority 
gives  the  right  to  do  one  as  it  does  to  do  the  other.  Why  can  not  the 
Government,  if  that  be  true,  exercise  a  supervision  over  such  a  tract  of 
land  as  you  have  described,  just  as  well  if  it  bears  on  navigation  in  one 
case  as  the  other? 

72538— AGR— 09 3 


34  FOREST   LANDS  FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Would  that  not,  in  very  many  cases,  be  practical 
confiscation  ? 

Mr.  POLLARD.  The  bill  to  which  I  refer  provides  for  payment  in 
such  cases. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Then,  practically,  the  Government  is  buying  the 
land. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  If  the  damages  cover  the  value  of  the  land,  yes. 

Governor  PARDEE.  And  it  must,  in  those  cases,  because  otherwise 
the  land  can  not  be  used  for  any  purpose  to  which  the  owner  has 
been  in  the  custom  of  using  the  land,  and  therefore  it  is  confiscation. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  In  that  case  the  Government  would  have  to  pay 
for  it. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Which  is  a  practical  purchase  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  land. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Practically  so. 

Governor  PARDEE.  I  have  no  doubt  in  the  world  but  what  there 
should  be  the  cooperation,  but  speaking  with  due  humility  for  my 
own  State,  the  State  of  California,  and  I  presume  that  other  States 
are  in  the  same  condition,  especially  the  newer  States  are  very  slow 
to  move  in  those  matters;  but  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  Eastern 
States  that  the  State  of  California  shall  take  up  those  matters,  and 
if  the  State  will  not  take  it  up  the  Government  itself  shall  take  it  up. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  What  objection  would  there  be  to  a  plan  like  this :  For 
the  Forestry  Department  of  the  Government,  under  the  direction  of 
the  President,  to  make  a  survey  of  the  forest  land,  say,  in  the  South- 
ern Appalachians  and  the  White  Mountains — those  are  the  mountains 
in  question  here — and  determine  what  portions  of  them  should  be  pre- 
served as  forest  reserves,  and  then,  by  proclamation,  to  bring  them 
under  the  supervision  of  the  department  ?  Then  the  Government  goes 
out  to  supervise  those  lands.  The  question  at  once  arises  as  to  whether 
they  have  a  bearing  on  navigation,  and  if  it  is  so  held,  under  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Supreme  Court,  I  think  the  Government  has  the  right  to 
regulate  those  lands  without  any  question,  just  as  much  as  they  have 
the  right  to  purchase  them  in  the  first  place. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Why  would  not  a  plan  of  that  kind  reach  the  object, 
accomplish  the  object  we  are  seeking  to  accomplish,  and  obviate  the 
necessity  of  purchase  ? 

Governor  PARDEE.  It  would  not  accomplish  all  we  have  to  reach, 
for  the  reason  that  down  in  the  lowest  parts  there  is  land  that  is  in 
deep  trouble,  land  that  is  being  denuded  of  its  soil,  having  been 
already  denuded  of  its  vegetation. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Would  that  not  come  under  the  terms  of  the  law,  if 
it  were  shown  that  it  interfered  with  navigation  ? 

Governor  PARDEE.  Then,  would  the  United  States  go  in  and  spend 
money  on  private  property? 

Mr.  POLLARD.  It  would  not  spend  any  money  there. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Then  how  could  it  regulate  it? 

Mr.  POLLARD.  It  would  simply  prevent  the  owner  from  using  the 
land  in  such  a  way  as  to  excite  this  erosion. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Therefore  take  his  right  of  living  on  the  pro- 
ceeds of  that  land  away  from  him  and  leave  him  to  starve.  Confis- 
cation, it  seems  to  me,  is  the  absolute  result  of  that  proposition  car- 
ried to  that  end  under  those  conditions. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  35 

Mr.  POLLARD.  The  terms  of  this  bill  provide  that  in  such  cases  he 
\vill  be  reimbursed. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Then  the  Government  purchases  the  land.  [Ap- 
plause.] I  have  no  quarrel  at  all  with  the  proposition  that  the  Gov- 
ernment can,  under  the  case  decided  by  the  supreme  court  of  Maine, 
regulate  the  use  of  land  that  is  forested  and  in  good  condition,  and 
it  is  not  taking  the  land  away  from  the  owner.  I  am  no  lawyer,  by 
the  way,  and  I  sympathize  with  you  heartily  on  that.  The  owner 
may  still,  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  or  the  Government,  use 
the  land  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  intended — that  is,  forestry — 
and  for  which  he  is  using  it,  but  he  may  not  denude  that  land. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  That  is  true. 

Governor  PARDEE.  This  land  down  in  the  Appalachians,  a  good 
deal  of  it,  as  I  am  told — I  have  never  been  there,  but  I  am  so  told, 
and  I  believe  that  is  admitted — is  already  denuded  of  its  forests; 
that  land  is  not  primarily  agricultural  land  of  the  best  kind  and 
quality,  and  that  it  has  been  so  used,  and  that  it  has  not  only  been 
denuded  of  its  forests  and  vegetation,  but  is  now  being,  and  a  great 
deal  of  it  has  been,  denuded  of  its  soil.  Now,  to  say  to  those  people 
who  have  denuded  it  of  its  forests  for  agricultural  purposes,  and  be- 
cause of  the  agricultural  use  of  the  land  it  is  being  denuded  of  its 
soil,  that  they  shall  not  use  that  land  for  agricultural  purposes,  is, 
with  due  deference,  confiscation,  and  the  only  thing  left  for  the 
Government  is  to  step  in  and  buy  the  land. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Granting  that  to  be  true,  and  I  am  inclined  to  agree 
with  you,  would  it  not  be  just  as  well  to  have  a  general  system  of 
supervision,  which  you  admit,  as  I  understand,  would  apply  to  most 
cases  excepting  instances  such  as  you  have  just  described?  Then  we 
would  not  purchase  any  of  the  land,  would  exercise  supervision  over 
all  that  where  it  is  only  partially,  say,  removed — partially  denuded,  I 
should  say — and  the  Government  then  would  only  purchase,  by  con- 
demnation proceedings,  as  you  have  described,  those  tracts  that  are 
wholly  denuded  and  ought  to  be  brought  back  into  forest  condition. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Except  those  slopes  of  the  forest  land,  and  I  am 
told  that  very  large  tracts  of  such  exist,  where  any  cutting  of  the 
timber  would  lead  to  its  denudation,  not  only  of  the  vegetation  of  the 
forest  growing  upon  it,  but  also  of  the  soil  itself,  there  the  Govern- 
ment, in  justice  to  the  owners  of  it,  must  go  in  and  buy  in  order  to 
preserve  the  status  quo.  Otherwise  we  simply  say  to  the  man  that  he 
may  own  the  land  and  derive  no  benefits  from  it ;  must  pay  taxes  on 
it,  but  can  not  use  it  for  the  purposes  for  which  he  bought  it.  There- 
fore, to  my  notion,  there  is  a  manner  given  for  the  Government  to  act 
under  those  circumstances — the  government  of  either  the  State  or  the 
nation — to  buy  that  land  and  use  it  for  the  purpose  for  which  nature 
designed  it  to  be  used,  and  for  which  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  desires  it  to  be  used,  as  a  protection  for  the  rivers,  the  streams, 
the  harbors. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Under  a  plan  where  the  Government  went  in  there 
under  supervision  and  prevented  the  cutting  of  anything  but  matured 
timber? 

Governor  PARDEE.  I  am  told  that  there  are  some  places  there  where 
even  the  cutting  of  the  matured  timber  would  make  trouble.  I  am 
also  told  that  a  great  area  of  that  country  has  already  been  cut  and 
is  being  cut  at  a  very  rapid  rate. 


36  FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  permit  me  to  suggest  right  there  that  I 
think  that  is  an  exaggeration  of  the  existing  conditions  ?  Of  course, 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  I  have  traveled  all  over  the  Southern  Ap- 
palachians, but  I  did  spend  a  week  in  a  part  of  North  Carolina, 
where  I  was  advised  to  go  by  a  very  enthusiastic  advocate  of  this 
project,  because  it  was  stated  that  the  worst  conditions  resulting  from 
the  denudation  of  the  forests  were  to  be  found  there  that  could  be 
found  anywhere.  I  think  it  would  be  conservative  to  say  that  not 
to  exceed  10  per  cent  of  the  total  area  of  the  mountain  sides  was  de- 
voted to  farming— denuded. 

Governor  PARDEE.  I  know  nothing  of  that  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  merely  wanted  to  have  that  statement  go  in, 
because  I  think  it  was  conveying  the  wrong  impression  to  give  out 
the  idea  that  a  great  proportion  of  the  country  is  denuded. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Would  you  permit  me  to  call  your  attention 
again  to  a  statement  made  by  Doctor  Van  Hise,  which  struck  me 
as  the  meat  of  this  whole  proposition — that  there  are  great  areas 
of  that  country  which  never  should  have  been  and  never  should  be 
put  to  agricultural  purposes,  and  that  those  properties  are  the  10  per 
cent  which  have  already  been  put  there,  and  that  the  other  90  per 
cent  of  those  districts  should  never  be  put  to  agricultural  uses. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  saw  the  slopes  in  North  Carolina,  which,  coming 
from  the  Kansas,  where  our  land  lies  as  it  should  lie,  I  should  have 
said  ought  never  to  have  been  devoted  to  farming,  and  yet  it  belonged 
to  men  who  said  that  they  would  not  part  with  it  for  less  than  $20 
an  acre,  because  they  were  raising  crops  on  it  every  year. 

Governor  PARDEE.  No  doubt. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  therefore  it  might  become  a  serious  question 
as  to  whose  judgment  should  determine. 

Governor  PARDEE.  Finally,  Mr.  Chairman,  experientia  has  doceted 
me  [laughter1]  that  finally  }7ou  must  come  to  the  expert  and  take 
his  views ;  that  the  blacksmith  must  shoe  the  horse  best ;  he  may  now 
and  then  lame  a  horse,  but  he  can  shoe  the  horse  best.  I  have  been 
dragged  a  little  away  from  my  proposition,  which  was  simply  this, 
that  where  cooperation  is  possible,  and  in  a  great  many  cases  it  is, 
that  that  is  the  thing;  that  where  the  States  will  not  or  can  not  or 
do  not  do  as  they  should  do  in  those  matters,  then  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  in  defense  of  itself  and  in  defense  of  its  people, 
should  step  in;  that  where  necessary  purchases  should  be  made  by 
the  State,  where  the  thing  can  be  regulated  by  the  State  or,  if  neces- 
sary, finally  by  the  Government,  and  where  that  regulation  is  itself 
sufficient,  then  regulation  is  enough.  But  that  no  purchases  should 
be  made,  speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Californian,  I  deny. 
[Applause.] 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  Was  that  case  you  referred  to  from  Maine  a  deci- 
sion on  the  case,  or  was  it  an  advisory  opinion  handed  down  by  the 
court  to  the  legislature  ? 

Governor  PARDEE.  It  was  an  advisory  opinion. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANK  D.  CURRIER,  A  REPRESENTATIVE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  wish  very  briefly  to  present  some 
facts  bearing  on  the  question  of  whether  the  removal  of  forests  from 
the  mountains  affects  in  a  material  way  the  uniform  flow  of  navi- 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  37 

gable  streams  in  the  East.  For  twenty  years  the  Government  has 
been  conducting  stream  measurements  at  Plymouth,  on  the  Pemige- 
wassett  River,  which  is  a  main  branch  of  the  Merrimac,  and  I  have 
here  a  chart  made  for  me  by  the  Geological  Survey  showing  the 
result  of  those  measurements,  and,  by  the  way,  the  measurements 
began  in  1886  and  cover  the  twenty-year  period  down  to  1906.  It 
was  about  that  time  that  the  great  cuttings  began  in  the  White  Moun- 
tains, particularly  on  the  southern  slopes,  the  Pemigewassett  rising 
on  the  southern  slopes  of  the  mountains.  You  will  see  from  that 
chart,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  low-water  period  has  increased  from 
nine  hundred  days  in  a  ten-year  period  to  one  thousand  three  hundred 
days,  or  four  hundred  days  in  a  ten-year  period,  running  up  sharply 
from  the  nine  hundred  period  to  the  thirteen  hundred,  while  the 
rainfall  has  remained  almost  the  same,  this  line  here  indicating  the 
rainfall.  This  chart  states  the  persistency  of  low-water  stages  on 
the  Pemigewassett  River  by  progressive  ten-year  periods,  showing 
number  of  days  in  each  period  from  1886  to  1906  that  gauge  at 
Plymouth,  N.  H.,  registered  2.5  feet  and  below.  Also  corresponding 
mean  annual  rainfall  for  progressive  ten-year  periods.  The  chart 
gives  striking  evidence,  it  seems  to  me,  of  the  effect  of  removing  the 
forests  from  the  White  Mountain  region,  for  that  was  about  the  time 
the  cuttings  on  that  slope  began.  I  wish  each  member  of  the  com- 
mittee would  look  at  this  chart,  and  I  file  it  as  one  of  the  exhibits. 
I  do  not  know  how  it  may  be  in  the  Southern  Appalachians,  but  all 
we  need  protected  are  the  high,  steep  slopes  in  the  White  Mountain 
country.  All  the  rest  will  reforest  itself.  It  is  only  on  the  high 
slopes,  when  the  forest  is  taken  off,  the  soil  is  all  washed  away  down 
to  the  bare  granite  rock. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  that  extend  all  the  way  to  the  bottom  of  the 
mountain? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No ;  it  is  only  on  the  high,  steep  slopes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  the  lower  part  of  the  mountain  is  refor- 
ested, does  it  not  serve  as  a  sort  of  retarder  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Not  if  you  have  a  mile  and  a  half  of  bare  rock  above 
you,  where  every  drop  of  rain  will  run  off  in  thirty  minutes. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  You  should  have  used  the  words  "  burned  away." 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Yes;  burned  away,  because  the  fire  burns  off  the 
growths  in  the  burned-over  areas.  The  fires  that  come  from  cut- 
over  lands  extend  into  the  virgin  growth,  but  it  is  rarely  indeed  that 
a  fire.starts  in  the  virgin  growth.  But  what  we  need  is  protection  for 
the  timber  land  for  the  higher  slopes  that  never  can  reforest  them- 
selves. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it,  in  your  judgment,  a  question  of  fire  pro- 
tection, largely? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No;  fire  is  a  very  important  factor  in  it.  Fire  starts 
in  your  cut-over  lands,  started  by  hunters  in  the  fall.  As  the  hunting 
season  opens  early,  the  timber  is  dry,  and  the  fire  starts  and  gets 
under  tremendous  headway  in  those  cut-over  lands,  but  I  scarcely 
ever  heard  of  a  fire  starting  in  a  virgin  growth, 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  Did  I  understand  that  you  had  continuous  slopes  a 
mile  and  a  half  long  in  the  White  Mountains  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  New  Hampshire  any  fire  patrol  ? 

200045 


38  FOREST   LANDS   FOE  THE   PROTECTION   OF   WATERSHEDS. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Not  any.  I  do  not  know,  but  apparently  there  has 
been  an  intimation  that  New  Hampshire  ought  to  have  gone  ahead 
and  established  this  reserve.  It  is  too  great  a  work  for  this  little 
State,  and  I  want  to  state  that  four  New  England  States  are  more 
interested  in  that  question  than  New  Hampshire  is.  Substantially 
every  river  of  any  consequence  in  New  England  rises  right  there  in 
the  White  Mountains,  and  those  rivers  flow  into  every  New  England 
State  except  Rhode  Island.  Take  the  Connecticut  in  four  of  them. 
The  Merrimac  supports  two  great  cities  in  Massachusetts  that  would  be 
flag  stations  on  the  railroad  if  it  was  not  for  the  water  of  that  river- 
Lowell  and  Lawrence.  The  Saco,  that  rises  in  the  White  Mountains, 
is  not  utilized  at  all  in  New  Hampshire.  The  Androscoggin  is  used 
at  only  one  point  and  passes  on  into  Maine.  They  support  great 
cities,  and  the  Connecticut,  that  flows  between  New  Hampshire  and 
Vermont,  across  the  Massachusetts  line,  is  not  utilized  by  the  State  of 
New  Hampshire.  Every  manufacturing  plant  on  the  Connecticut 
opposite  New  Hampshire  is  located  in  Vermont. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course  we  can  not  take  the  question  of  water 
power  in  the  stream. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  am  talking  about  navigation,  not  about  water 
power,  although  I  take  it  that  it  would  not  be  an  objection  in  the 
minds  of  this  committee  that  it  would  serve  to  give  employment  to 
tens  of  thousands  of  people  if  you  could  do  that  as  an  incident. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Undoubtedly  not.  But  mav  I  ask  you  this  ques- 
tion, whether  any  data  has  been  prepared  showing  to  what  extent  the 
water  power  has  been  diminished  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  just  presented  it  to  you,  four  hundred  days  in  a 
ten-year  period,  four  hundred  days  more  of  low  water  than  there  was* 
ten  years  ago. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  might  be  true  and  yet  the  water  might  not 
be  low  enough  to  result  in  a  loss  of  power. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Even  now  we  have  to  have  an  auxiliary  steam  plant 
and  machinery,  and  if  we  undertake  to  run  with  steam  alone,  with 
coal  as  high  as  it  is,  we  would  close  our  plants;  and  all  along  those 
rivers  the  leading  industries  have  auxiliary  steam  plants. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  any  data  ever  been  prepared  showing  the 
difference  in  actual  horsepower  of  the  water  power  developed  now 
and  developed  in  a  similar  period? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No;  I  would  think  not;  except  that  when  you  have 
got  what  they  call  the  low-water  period  at  Plymouth,  you  inay  be 
sure  that  the  water  is  not  furnishing  much  power  at  the  manufac- 
turing cities  of  Manchester,  Lowell,  and  Lawrence,  and  that  period 
has  increased  forty  days  in  a  year.  Pardon  me  if  I  make  one  sugges- 
tion as  to  Mr.  Pollard's  proposition  about  the  government  regula- 
tion. The  lands  we  need  to  acquire  can  not  be  gotten  under  govern- 
ment supervision  or  regulation.  When  you  get  lands  on  the  high 
slopes  in  New  England,  you  have  got  to  get  every  single  thing.  You 
go  in  there  and  thin  out  your  matured  trees,  and  the  next  winter 
the  wind  will  bring  down  all  those  left. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  they  ever  get  to  be  big,  then  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Because  they  have  grown  up  almost  a  solid  mass. 
You  go  in  there  and  take  out  half  the  trees.  No  one  has  ever  seen 
a  New  England  forest  cleared  out  but  that  he  finds  on  the  high  slopes 
that  the  trees  are  blown  down. 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOE   THE   PEOTECTION    OF   WATEESHBDS.  39 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Is  that  on  account  of  the  shallowness  of  the  soil? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Principally  that;  a  great  many  of  the  trees  have 
been  simply  turned  over.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  anything  more 
to  say. 

Mr.  HASKINS.  Is  it  the  lumber  interests  of  the  White  Mountains  or 
the  farming  interests  that  have  denuded  the  lands? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  The  lumber  interests. 

Mr.  HASKINS.  Entirely  so? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  The  lumber  interests.  The  chairman  was  speaking 
about  the  floods  caused  by  the  snows  going  off.  What  my  friend, 
Mr.  Weeks,  said  about  that  is  true.  Half  those  lands,  or  great  patches 
everywhere,  are  cleared.  I  live  in  the  mountains  at  home.  Half  of 
the  country  about  me  is  forest,  and  from  the  other  half  the  snow 
goes  off  before  the  snows  in  the  forests  move  at  all.  We  never  have 
freshets  when  we  have  a  heavy  snowfall.  When  we  have  3  or  4  feet 
of  snow  in  the  woods  we  never  look  for  freshets,  because  that  amount 
of  snow  will  stand  a  thirty-six  hour  rain  before  it  will  let  out  a  drop. 
We  look  for  freshets  when  we  have  5  or  6  inches  of  snow ;  that  is,  in 
the  fall,  when  it  all  goes  off  with  a  warm  rain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  notice  the  statement,  which  is  attributed  to  Mr. 
Ayers,  to  this  effect :  "  The  farms  in  the  Connecticut  Valley  are 
among  the  richest  in  the  State,  that  is,  in  New  Hampshire,  and  have 
been  less  abandoned  than  elsewhere.  There  is,  however,  a  goodly 
acreage,  amounting  to  25  per  cent,  which  was  cleared  land  in  1850 
and  which  has  reverted  to  forests,  much  of  it  good  white  pine  for- 
ests." And  I  have  seen  elsewhere  that  the  watershed  of  the  Connec- 
ticut Eiver  above  Holyoke  is  very  much  better  forested  now  than  it 
was  forty  years  ago. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  All  through  my  own  section,  which  is  about  halfway 
up  the  State,  in  the  Connecticut  Valley,  we  have  more  forests  than 
we  had  fifty  years  ago.  I  want  to  say  another  thing.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  the  diminution  of  stream  flow  has  been  largely  caused 
by  drainage  in  clearing  the  lands.  I  want  to  say  that  that  does  not 
apply  to  tEe  Pemigewassett  at  Plymouth.  All  along  this  river  there 
is  less  tillage  land  than  there  was  fifty  years  ago,  and  more  woodland. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  you  square  that  with  the  argument  that 
it  is  the  denudation  of  all  the  woodland  that  creates  the  floods  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  The  denudation  is  at  the  head  of  these  streams 
around  the  White  Mountains,  where  this  enormous  cutting  is  taking 
place.  [Applause.]  We  are  not  asking  the  Government  to  buy  any 
lands  down  in  the  low  hills  and  the  flat  country.  That  will  reforest 
itself;  it  does  it  with  marvelous  quickness.  My  own  section  is  a 
white-pine  section.  I  have  a  neighbor  who  three  times  in  his  life- 
time has  cut  over  his  pine  lands  completely. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  How  large  would  the  trees  be  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Forty  thousand  feet  to  the  acre,  board  measure. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  speak  of  the  watershed  of  a  river,  I  at 
least  get  the  idea  that  you  mean  the  entire  watershed. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  did  not  mean  the  entire  watershed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  when  you  say  that  the  watershed  is  better 
forested  now  than  it  was  fifty  years  ago,  it  would  really  seem  to  me 
that  we  ought  to  find  out  what  relation  that  has  to  the  flow. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Not  the  lower  reaches  of  the  river,  but  the  reaches 
of  the  river  as  it  comes  out  of  the  mountains.  If  you  could  see  the 


40  FOREST  LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

slopes  of  the  White  Mountains  yourself,  any  of  you  gentlemen,  some 
of  them  with  a  stupendous  growth  and  others  cut  as  clean  as  Mr. 
Hale  described  it  to-day,  you  would  realize  that  those  snows,  all  left 
open  to  the  sun,  going  off  rapidly,  and  with  the  rains  coming  down 
on  it  and  the  soil  being  washed  on  the  upper  slopes,  leaving  bare 
granite;  every  drop  of  water  runs  off. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  the  denudation  there  results  in  bare  granite 
and  has  resulted  already  in  bare  granite,  and  if  you  can  not  raise  a 
little  tree  without  the  protection  of  larger  trees,  what  would  you 
have  the  Government  do  in  case  it  purchased  that? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Those  slopes  that  have  not  been  cut  over  have  not 
a  very  valuable  growth  on  the  upper  slopes;  the  prices  are  small. 
There  is  a  growth  there  which  is  worth  cutting  now  if  those  lands 
could  be  purchased.  Under  those  operations  the  soil  itself  all  washes 
away,  and  nothing  can  be  done.  The  mountains  that  have  been  cut 
over  in  my  State,  which  are  more  than  3,000  feet  high,  have  got  now 
from  500  to  1,000  feet  down  to  bare  rock,  and  they  used  to  be  cov- 
ered over  the  summit  with  trees. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  What  would  be  the  cost  of  this  land  which  you  spoke 
of  a  moment  ago  that  you  want  the  Government  to  purchase  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  It  is  difficult  to  lumber  there,  and  they  are  short- 
bodied  trees,  as  they  call  them.  I  could  not  tell  you  the  cost ;  but  they 
are  not  particularly  valuable ;  nothing  like  the  value  of  the  great  pine 
growths  of  the  lower  slopes. 

Mr.  POLLARD.  Could  you  approximate  it? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  the  upper  slopes,  which  you  de- 
scribed as  bare  granite,  should  be  purchased  in  any  scheme  of  this 
kind? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Possibly  not;  but  I  would  purchase  clear  up  to  the 
timber  line.  Nobody  expects  you  to  purchase  the  top  of  Mount  Wash- 
ington. The  bare  rock  up  there  is  worth  $3,000  or  $4,000.  Nobody 
wants  that  purchased ;  but  purchase  as  high  up  as  the  timber  goes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  to  suggest  to  the  gentlemen  here,  we 
do  not  want  to  give  the  wrong  impression.  The  questions  that  are 
being  asked  by  the  chairman  and  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  are 
asked  for  the  purpose  of  eliciting  information.  They  are  asked  to 
meet  objections  we  hear  on  every  hand. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Any  information  I  can  possibly  give,  you  know  I 
will. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  understand,  I  know,  Mr.  Currier;  I 
want  the  rest  of  the  gentlemen  to  understand  that  any  question  is 
not  asked  as  a  question  of  objection  or  controversy,  but  in  absolute 
good  faith.  [Applause.] 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  As  to  the  matter  of  forest  reproduction,  that  was  a 
matter  in  which  we  are  greatly  interested.  I  asked  a  question  a 
moment  ago,  and  I  have  been  figuring.  If  I  understood  you  cor- 
rectly, you  said  that  one  man,  in  his  lifetime,  had  cut  over  his  land 
three  times. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  White-pine  growth. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  At  the  average  of  about  40,000  feet  to  the  acre? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  That  would  be  120,000  produced  on  1  acre  of  land 
in  a  man's  lifetime? 


FOKEST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  41 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  Or  about  20,000,000  feet  in  a  quarter  section? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  That  is  a  remarkable  reproduction  of  timber. 

Mr.  AYERS.  That  is  not  in  the  mountains. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  Anywhere. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  There  is  no  pine  after  you  get  up  2,000  or  3,000  feet. 

Governor  GUILD.  Are  those  lands  in  that  part  of  New  Hampshire 
in  which  it  is  contemplated  to  purchase  forests  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No. 

Governor  GUILD.  Then  that  does  not  enter  into  this  subject,  does  it? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No;  he  was  speaking  about  the  reforestation  of  the 
low  slopes. 

Governor  GUILD.  Exactly;  but  we  are  talking  to  this  particular 
proposition. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  Conditions  are  very  different  in  the  White  Mountains 
from  what  they  are  in  the  Southern  Appalachians  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Very  much. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  The  lands  that  you  propose  to  purchase  in  the  White 
Mountains  are  those  lands  where  the  soil  is  very  thin,  and  where  if 
the  timber  is  once  cut  off  and  the  fire  gets  in  it  burns  everything  as 
clean  as  the  walls  of  this  room  and  it  is  impossible  to  do  anything 
with  that  in  the  future.  That  is  what  you  want  to  buy.  The  fact 
is,  probably,  that  there  is  more  wooded  territory  in  New  Hampshire 
than  there  was  fifty  years  ago,  taking  the  whole  State. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  But  that  is  not  true  around  the  headwaters  of  these 
rivers  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Not  at  all.  Fifty  years  ago  it  was  an  absolutely  vir- 
gin growth. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  And  what  you  want  to  buy  in  the  White  Mountains 
are  those  slopes  which  have  not  been  cut  off  yet ;  and  if  they  are  once 
cut  off  will  leave  a  bare  surface  that  will  precipitate  all  the  moisture 
that  strikes  them  in  a  short  time  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Just  that,  Mr.  Weeks. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  How  large  would  a  tree  be  that  this  man  would  get 
off  this  land?  How  many  inches  through  at  the  point  of  cutting 
would  it  be  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  suppose  14  to  18  inches. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  And  that  would  be  reproduced  three  times  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  man  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  This  old  man,  83  or  84  years  old,  told  me  last  winter 
that  for  the  third  time  in  his  lifetime  he  cut  over  his  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  I  understand  it,  then,  the  problem  in  the 
White  Mountains  is  not  the  protection  of  the  lower  slopes,  because 
they  protect  themselves,  and  it  is  not  the  purchase  of  the  upper  slopes 
that  are  now  denuded  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  It  is  not  like  the  Southern  Appalachians. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  me  finish  my  statement.  It  is  not  the  pur- 
chase of  the  upper  slopes  that  are  already  denuded,  because  they  can 
not  be  reforested.  It  is  the  purchase  of  upper  slopes  that  have  not 
been  cut  over  in  order  that  they  may  be  protected  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  That  is  just  it. 


42  FOEEST  LANDS  FOE  THE   PEOTECTION    OF   WATEESHEDS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  believe  you  said  a  moment  ago  that  you  did  not 
believe  the  situation  could  be  taken  care  of  with  an  effective  fire 
control ;  that  even  without  fire  going  over  these  upper  slopes  the  mere 
lumbering  would  result  in  washing  away  the  soil  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  It  is  very  apt  to.  Everything  the  lumbermen  leave 
is  blown  down.  The  bare,  rocky  soil  is  only  a  few  inches  thick,  and 
it  turns  up,  disclosing  bare  granite  rock. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  Do  you  not  think  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  ought 
to  organize  an  effective  fire  control? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  want  to  say  that  the  State  of  New  Hampshire  will 
give  you  any  aid.  Beyond  all  question,  in  my  mind,  if  the  Govern- 
ment should  take  the  first  step,  the  State  would  make  purchases  direct 
from  the  treasury.  On  the  matter  of  tax,  these  mountain  towns  are 
largely  supported  by  appropriations  from  the  state  treasury  to-day. 
The  taking  of  this  property  away  from  taxation  would  simply  put  a 
little  more  burden  on  the  treasury,  because  we  largely  support  their 
schools  in  these  wood  towns. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  tax  the  land  uniformly  in  your  white-pine 
country,  or  do  you  tax  the  lumber  as  it  is  cut? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No;  we  tax  the  land.  We  are  supposed  to  tax  it  at 
its  full  value,  but  timber  lands  are  not  taxed  at  the  full  value,  and 
particularly  the  great  tracts  in  the  north  of  the  State. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  inadvisable,  if  a  bill  is  re- 
ported from  this  committee  to  purchase  lands  in  any  State,  that  it 
should  be  made  conditional  that  a  fire  control  should  be  established 
in  the  State  before  it  is  purchased  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Not  at  all.  Our1  State  would  be  entirely  willing  to 
do  that. 

Mr.  STANLEY.  This  soil,  as  I  understand  you,  being  very  thin,  is 
not  the  result  of  any  disintegration  of  the  rock,  but  is  just  an  accu- 
mulation of  partially  decayed  debris  from  the  vegetable  growth  itself  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  If  it  is  let  alone  it  gradually  becomes  that. 

Mr.  BEALL.  What  is  the  general  ownership  of  the  land ;  is  it  owned 
by  private  individuals  or  by  corporations? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  Private  individuals.  I  suppose  the  largest  timber 
concern  is  the  Berlin  mills,  which,  by  the  way,  is  the  largest  lumber 
concern  east  of  Michigan,  I  believe.  They  operate  under  an  expert 
forester,  and  where  the  lands  will  permit,  they  take  out  nothing  but 
matured  trees,  their  purpose  being  to  have  an  inexhaustible  supply  of 
lumber,  but  on  the  high  scopes  they  can  not  cut  that  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  heard  of  any  syndicates  being  formed 
in  the  White  Mountains  which  have  taken  options  upon  lands  with  a 
view  to  their  sale  to  the  Government? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  None  except  some  rumors  here;  nothing  there.  The 
International  is  a  very  large  timber  company,  and  one  or  two  other 
paper  companies,  the  Berlin  mills,  and  I  do  not  know  what  others. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  express  an  opinion  as  to  the  price  at 
which  this  land  could  be  gotten? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  No. 

Mr.  BEALL.  What  is  the  state  of  feeling  of  the  individual  owners 
on  this  question  ?  Do  they  seem  disposed  to  favor  it  ? 

Mr.  CURRIER.  I  do  not  suppose  there  is  a  man,  woman,  or  child  in 
all  New  England  who  is  not  intensely  interested  in  this  matter.  [Ap- 
plause.] 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  43 

Governor  GUILD.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  CURRIER.  This  committee  does  not  realize  how  much  in  earnest 
we  are,  and  you  do  not  realize,  either,  the  growing  feeling  in  the  East 
that  the  East  is  not  getting  a  fair  show.  [Applause.]  Mr.  Pinchot 
says  that  the  forest  reserves  west  of  the  Mississippi  Eiver  are  worth 
1,500  million  dollars,  and  we  are  asking  an  appropriation  for  all  this 
country  east  of  the  Mississippi  of  one-third  of  1  per  cent,  and  we 
think  we  ought  to  have  it.  [Applause.] 

Governor  GUILD.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  regret  extremely  that  my  duties 
in  Massachusetts  make  it  imperative  for  me  to  leave  at  this  time. 
The  meeting  of  the  executive  council  has  been  postponed  for  twenty- 
four  hours  for  the  express  purpose  of  letting  the  chief  executive  of 
Massachusetts  come  down  here  and  express  the  intense  feeling  of  the 
people  of  that  Commonwealth  in  favor  of  this  bill  and  this  proposi- 
tion of  forest  protection  for  the  whole  Appalachian  region,  from  the 
most  northern  to  the  most  southern  States,  and  in  parting  may  I 
thank  you,  sir,  and  members  of  the  committee,  for  the  great  courtesy 
which  has  been  accorded  me  and  the  kindness  and  patience  with 
which  you  have  listened  to  the  arguments.  I  shall  take  great  pleas- 
ure in  presenting  as  my  successor,  Mr.  Harvey,  of  Philadelphia,  who 
will  introduce  the  speakers.  Congressman  Currier  has  not  exagger- 
ated one  moment  the  intense  feeling  which  prevails  in  New  England 
in  regard  to  this  matter.  There  are  cities  in  New  England  which 
can  not  run  their  electric-light  plants,  and  they  are  now  in  darkness 
on  account  of  the  drought.  There  are  rivers' in  Massachusetts,  the 
banks  of  which  have,  for  the  first  time,  become  coated  with  sewage 
owing  to  the  lack  of  the  water  flow.  That,  we  are  informed  by  the 
experts  in  arboriculture,  is  due  to  the  denudation  of  the  regions  at 
the  headwaters  of  the  great  rivers  of  New  England,  and  I  think  Mr. 
Ayers  will  bear  me  out  that  whether  an  exaggerated  statement  has 
or  has  not  been  made  in  regard  to  the  southern  Appalachians,  the 
condition  has  not  been  exaggerated  in  regard  to  the  White  Mountain 
region,  for  if  the  thing  continues  at  the  headwaters  of  the  New  Eng- 
land rivers  at  the  present  rate,  the  upper  slopes  there,  which  we  need, 
wil  be  denuded  of  trees  in  five  years,  and  therefore  we  pray  you  for 
immediate  action  and  for  the  strong  arm  of  the  National  Government 
in  behalf  of  the  Atlantic  slopes.  I  thank  you  very  much.  [Ap- 
plause.] 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Governor  Guild,  the  committee  has  felt  honored, 
I  am  sure,  by  your  presence  here  to-day,  and  regrets  very  much  that 
you  can  not  remain  throughout  the  entire  hearing. 

We  will  now  listen  to  Mr.  Harvey. 

STATEMENT  OF  ME.  WILLIAM  S.  HARVEY,  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  in  succeeding  our 
splendid  chairman,  which  honor  I  appreciate,  and  also  appreciate 
how  incompetent  I  am  to  properly  succeed  him,  I  will  only  say  on 
behalf  of  the  many  persons  here  that  I  was  sent  here  to  represent  the 
National  Board  of  Trade,  being  chairman  of  the  committee  on  for- 
estry and  irrigation;  that  the  National  Board  of  Trade,  which  repre- 
sents about  72  boards  of  trade  and  chambers  of  commerce  throughout 
the  entire  United  States,  have  advocated  forestry  measures  for  more 
than  fifteen  years.  They  were  among  the  first  advocates  of  the 


44  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

creation  of  the  Forest  Bureau,  for  having  transferred  to  the  Forest 
Bureau  all  the  lands  that  were  in  the  possession  of  the  Department  of 
the  Interior  that  were  suitable  to  be  made  into  reserves,  to  be  cared  for 
under  proper  forestry  conditions.  So  the  National  Board  of  Trade 
feel  that  the  condition  at  the  present  time  that  has  been  attained, 
the  education  that  has  developed,  the  interest  that  has  brought  about 
and  created  a  conservation  commission,  that  the  whole  country, 
through  the  educational  work  that  has  taken  place  throughout  these 
years,  has  become  alive  to  the  importance  of  the  conservation  and  the 
utilization  of  all  of  our  natural  resources.  I  am  also  here  on  behalf 
of  the  deep  waterways*  and  inland  waterways  people,  being  identified 
and  associated  with  them.  I  also  have  the  privilege  and  the  honor  to 
be  the  chairman  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  American  Forestry 
Association,  and  we  have  worked  for  many  years  to  help  to  develop 
and  create  the  sentiment  that  is  making  what  we  want  done  now 
possible  to  be  done.  We  believe,  looking  at  it  as  we  do  from  the 
commercial  side  and  not  from  the  sentimental  side,  that  the  most 
important  thing  we  have  to  consider  is  the  preservation  and  the 
intelligent  utilization  of  our  forests,  especially  on  the  headwaters  of 
all  of  our  streams,  if  inland  waterways  are  to  be  developed  and  trans- 
portation is  to  be  furnished,  not  only  for  the  present,  but  for  the 
future;  that  the  preservation  of  the  forests  and  reforestation,  and 
the  proper  use  of  them,  are  the  fundamental  and  underlying  ques- 
tions that  are  involved  in  the  whole  question  of  conservation  and 
utilization  of  waterways. 

I  am  not  going  to  burden  you  gentlemen  with  an  address.  I  did 
not  come  here  to  do  that.  I  did  not  come  here  with  any  expectation 
of  acting  further  than  as  a  spectator.  I  came  here  "  swift  to  hear 
but  slow  to  speak."  But  the  people  of  Pennsylvania,  whom  I  also 
represent  as  a  member  of  the  conservation  commission  of  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  had  the  privilege  of  representing  that  State  at 
the  conference  at  the  White  House  as  well,  are  doing,  and  have  done, 
and  have  been  pioneers  in  doing,  what  has  been  suggested  that  the 
States  shall  do  in  your  hearing  to-day.  The  State  of  Pennsylvania 
took  this  matter  up  more  than  fifteen  years  ago.  We  now  own 
830,000  acres  of  land,  much  of  which  was  bought,  I  think,  at  the 
averaging  price  of  a  little  less  than  $3  per  acre.  The  State  is  reforest- 
ing. I  visited  plantations  of  the  State  last  summer.  They  have 
millions  of  seedlings.  They  are  planting  out  this  year  about  800,000 
pine  trees  on  the  reserves,  and  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  will  within 
ten  years  have  an  income  from  her  reserves.  Not  only  that,  but  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  has  been  the  pioneer  in  one  of  the  most  magnifi- 
cent things  that  has  ever  been  done  by  any  State,  and  it  shows.  Take 
the  city  of  Philadelphia,  which  is  known  as  the  "  City  of  Brotherly 
Love."  Its  influence  has  extended  throughout  the  entire  State,  and 
that  praiseworthy  element  has  so  influenced  the  people  of  the  entire 
State  that  their  interest  in  suffering  humanity  has  been  so  great  that 
our  legislature  appropriated  $1,000,000  a  year  ago  for  the  establish- 
ment of  camps  for  tuberculosis  patients  on  the  reserves  of  the  State, 
and  that  work  is  now  being  done  as  an  example  to  every  State  on 
behalf  of  those  who  are  suffering  from  what  has  heretofore  been  con- 
sidered an  incurable  disease.  I  visited  these  camps  last  summer. 
The  week  before  T  was  there  1C  men  and  women  had  been  sent 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  45 

home  cured,  after  a  residence  of  nine  months,  and  Pennsylvania  is 
the  pioneer  in  that  great  work.  New  York  has  commenced  to  do  the 
same  thing.  New  York  to-day  has  a  million  and  a  half  acres  in  her 
reserves.  Now,  Pennsylvania  is  not  asking  the  Government  to  pur- 
chase any  lands  for  them.  I  am  here  as  a  Pennsylvanian. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  beg  your  pardon,  but  I  thought  there  was  a 
project  on  hand  to  induce  the  Government  to  purchase  a  large  tract 
of  land  in  the  watershed  of  the  Monongahela  and  Allegheny  rivers. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  At  a  meeting  at  Pittsburg  I  believe  that  was  con- 
sidered. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  what  sentiment  there  is  back  of  it; 
whether  in  case  the  precedent  should  be  set,  for  example,  by  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  we  might  expect  next  year  to  have  a  proposal 
from  Pennsylvania  to  buy  a  large  area  in  that  State? 

Mr.  HARVEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  the  suggestion  grew  out 
of  some  of  the  suggestions  that  were  made  to  extend  the  Appalachian 
reserve  all  the  way  up  to  Pennsylvania,  to  protect  some  of  the  waters. 
Nothing  much  grew  out  of  that.  It  was  not  a  matter  by  which  Penn- 
sylvania was  in  anyway  benefited,  just  as  New  Hampshire  is  not  bene- 
fited by  the  use  of  the  waters  that  have  their  origin  in  the  State  of 
New  Hampshire.  A  number  of  our  great  rivers  have  their  origin  in 
the  mountains  of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  Alleghenies. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  made  the  remark  only  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  proposition  which  is  now  before  us,  of  purchasing 
tracts  in  the  White  and  Appalachian  mountains,  is  by  no  means  all 
that  we  are  asked  to  consider.  There  are  bills  before  this  committee 
calling  for  appropriations  for  similar  purchases  in  a  great  many 
other  States,  and  while  I  think  there  is  none  from  Pennsylvania,  yet 
I  had  understood  that  a  movement  was  in  abeyance  there,  merely 
waiting  favorable  action  upon  this  bill. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  I  do  not  think  that  Pennsylvania  is  liable  to  seriously 
urge  that.  I  hope  you  gentlemen  will  excuse  me  for  taking  so  much 
of  your  time.  I  simply  intended  to  act  as  the  medium  of  introduc- 
tion of  the  other  gentlemen  who  are  to  be  heard,  and  the  next  gentle- 
man on  our  list  is  Professor  Swain,  of  the  technology  school  at  Boston. 

STATEMENT  OF  PROF.  G.  F.  SWAIN,  OF  THE  MASSACHUSETTS  IN- 
STITUTE OF  TECHNOLOGY. 

Professor  SWAIN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  commit- 
tee, I  had  the  honor  of  appearing  before  you  last  spring,  and  I  was 
in  hopes  that  on  this  occasion  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  call  upon 
me  again,  but  that  other  experts  might  be  brought  in  my  stead.  I  am 
very  glad  that  Professor  Van  Hise  appeared  before  you  and  that  he 
and  others  have  said  a  good  deal  of  what  ought  to  be  said  much  bet- 
ter than  I  could  say  it.  Since  last  spring  there  have  been  some  new 
things  come  up  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  rivers  and  forests,  and  to 
those  I  will  refer  somewhat  briefly. 

The  effect  of  the  forests  on  the  streams  is  concerned  mainly  with 
the  effect  on  the  rainfall  after  it  reaches  the  ground.  That  rainfall, 
after  it  reaches  the  ground,  is  divided  into  three  parts.  One  part 
flows  directly  from  the  surface  into  streams,  another  part  wets  the 


46  FOBEST   LANDS   FOB  THE    PBOTECTION    OF    WATEBSHEDS. 

ground  and  the  leaves  and  whatever  may  be  on  the  surface  and  is 
evaporated,  and  the  third  part  percolates  into  the  ground  and  either 
descends  until  it  gets  to  the  ground  water  and  is  given  out  in  springs 
or  part  of  it  is  taken  up  by  plants  and  used  by  them  in  building  up 
their  tissues  and  part  of  it  again  is  evaporated  through  their  leaves. 
The  preservation  of  the  flow  of  the  streams  depends  mainly  on  keep- 
ing the  percolation  of  the  water  into  the  ground  at  the  expense  of 
what  flows  directly  from  the  surface.  That  we  can  reduce,  but  later, 
of  course,  it  percolates  into  the  ground,  then  the  flow  will  be  dimin- 
ished and  the  springs  will  be  held  up  in  the  dry  season  of  the  year. 
That  is  what  the  forest  does.  The  forest  bed  or  floor  absorbs  the 
water  as  it  come  down  and  gives  it  out  gradually,  and  I  think  a  mis- 
apprehension, perhaps,  exists  in  regard  to  the  simile  which  has  been 
made  to  a  sponge,  and  in  that  paper  which  the  chairman  had  that 
mistake  is  made  fundamentally. 

The  forest  floor  is  not  like  a  sponge  or  a-n  impervious  surface.  It 
does  not  simply  intercept  the  water  which  flows  down  that  impervious 
surface  and  filter  it  as  it  passes  through  it  and  give  it  out  gradually 
below.  The  real  sponge,  the  real  reservoir,  is  the  soil  underneath 
the  bed  of  the  forest  humus,  and  this  bed  holds  the  water  and  allows 
it  to  gradually  percolate  or  flow  into  the  soil.  A  distinction  must 
be  made,  and  a  rather  sharp  one,  between  the  action  of  forests  where 
the  land  is  flat  and  where  the  land  is  steep.  Where  the  land  is  flat 
the  most  important  elements  are  the  evaporation  and  the  percola- 
tion; if  the  land  is  absolutely  flat  there  would  be  no  tendency  for 
the  water  to  run  off ;  but  where  the  ground  is  steep  there  the  action 
of  the  forest  is  the  most  important,  and  there  its  action  is  two- 
fold. As  I  said,  it  retards  the  delivery  into  the  the  streams  of  the 
water  which  ultimately  reaches  those  streams;  it  holds  the  water 
and  delivers  it  gradually  to  the  ground  beneath.  It  is  also  a  great 
factor  during  the  winter  and  spring  in  retarding  snow.  The  snow 
which  falls  in  the  forest  stays  there  much  longer  than  the  snow  which 
falls  in  the  open,  and  it  is  melted  gradually,  and  therefore  is  deliv- 
ered gradually  to  the  streams  and  fills  them  up  more  gradually  than  if 
it  went  off  all  at  once.  There  are  other  ways  besides  these  agencies  of 
increasing  the  percolation.  One  is  cultivation,  where  the  surface  of 
the  ground  is  plowed  up;  that  increases  the  percolation  and  allows 
the  streams  to  be  fed,  to  a  certain  extent,  during  the  growing  season, 
and  on  steep  slopes,  which  ought  not  to  be  cultivated,  or  can  not  be 
cultivated,  the  forest  is  practically  the  only  agency  which  is  useful 
in  conserving  this  flow  of  the  stream.  The  flow  from  the  forest, 
then,  is  delivered  gradually  to  the  streams.  It  feeds  the  springs, 
keeps  up  the  slow  water  flow,  prevents  the  water  from  going  off  sud- 
denly into  the  streams,  and,  furthermore,  prevents  the  erosion, 
because  the  soil  is  not  carried  away  by  the  flowing  water.  Therefore 
the  relation  between  the  forest  and  the  floods  is  a  perfect  and  neces- 
sary one,  and  the  opinion  of  engineers,  scientists,  and  geologists  all 
over  the  world  is  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  that  influence. 

As  the  chairman  has  undoubtedly  seen  in  the  South,  if  anything 
absorbs  the  flow  from  a  cultivated  area  the  water  flowing  from  the 
steep  slopes  carries  down  the  soil,  and  the  rush  of  water  obstructs  the 
flow  below.  Of  course,  the  silt  which  comes  from  the  mountain  is 
deposited  in  the  first  pool.  The  water  takes  up  the  silt  according  to 


FOEEST  LANDS  'FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  47 

its  velocity  and  according  to  the  size  of  the  grains  of  soil.  It  de- 
posits them  according  as  its  velocity  decreases  and  it  is  no  longer 
able  to  carry  that  silt.  And  so,  as  it  goes  down  the  stream,  it  erodes 
here  where  its  velocity  is  great  and  deposits  there  where  its  velocity 
is  small,  and  so  it  gradually  carries  the  mass  of  soil  to  the  sea.  It 
always  carries  some  down,  and  although  it  may  take  years  for  silt  to 
reach  the  sea  from  the  mountains,  it  finally  reaches  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  course,  the  silting  process  takes  place  in  flat 
countries  as  well  as  in  mountain  countries.  The  streams  in  Kansas, 
for  example,  which,  before  the  country  was  settled,  were  clear  streams 
with  rock  or  gravel  bottoms,  are  now  covered  with  a  thick  deposit, 
3  to  6  feet  in  the  deeper  pools,  of  mud  washed  in  from  the  surround- 
ing farms. 

Professor  SWAIN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  could  hardly  put  the  country  back  into  prairie 
grass  in  order  to  restore  the  streams,  could  we? 

Professor  SWAIN.  No,  sir;  but  you  could  protect  the  upper  parts 
of  the  streams,  where  the  floods  arise. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  point  I  want  to  make.  It  is  on  the 
mountain  slopes  where  the  floods  take  their  rise. 

Professor  SWAIN.  And  if  those  can  be  protected  the  floods  will 
be  diminished.  We  can  not,  however,  obviate  floods.  There  will 
always  be  floods,  and  I  will  explain  that  presently.  In  1898  there 
was  a  report  of  a  committee  on  floods  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and 
of  that  committee  Senator  Nelson  was  chairman.  In  the  report  they 
stated  that  they  were  unable  to  find  any  relation  between  the  cutting 
down  of  the  woods  on  the  upper  Mississippi  River  and  the  floods  of 
the  Mississippi.  The  explanation  is  perfectly  reasonable.  I  pre- 
sume that  committee  did  not  go  into  any  very  elaborate  study  of  the 
phenomena,  as  they  did  not  have  time  to  do  it,  and  yet  I  am  perfectly 
ready  to  admit  the  general  truth  of  that  conclusion.  The  reason  is 
that  that  is  a  flat  country,  and  there  could  be  no  relation  traced  be- 
tween the  floods  and  the  cutting  down  of  timber.  That  same  report 
states  that  all  of  the  great  floods  of  the  Mississippi  come  from  the 
Ohio.  There  you  have  the  thing  in  a  nutshell.  The  Ohio  drains 
the  western  slope  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains.  I  think  it  might  have 
been  said  that  the  floods  come  from  the  upper  portions  of  the  Ohio 
in  the  mountain  regions.  That  is  the  birthplace  of  the  floods,  where 
they  gather,  in  the  steep  mountain  sides  and  are  carried  down  to  the 
streams. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  not  the  watershed  increase  in  area  as  you 
approach  the  navigable  portions  of  the  stream  ? 

Professor  SWAIN.  Certainly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  is  it  not  likely,  therefore,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
that  the  greater  portion  of  the  water  which  causes  the  flood  falls  upon 
that  part  of  the  watershed  immediately  tributary  to  the  navigable 
portion,  and  not  on  the  comparatively  restricted  area  of  the  upper 
tributaries  ? 

Professor  SWAIN.  I  think  not.  I  think  the  birthplace  of  the  floods 
is  in  the  high  mountain  slopes,  and  that  the  control  there  will 
have  a  great  deal  more  efficacy  than  the  control  anywhere  else.  In 
studying  this  matter  there  are  great  difficulties  in  tracing  their  con- 
nections, and  I  would  like  to  dwell  upon  that  just  for  a  minute.  The 
reason  of  the  difficulty  is  that  we  can  not  isolate  the  phenomena  of 


48  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

the  forests  from  other  influences  which  affect  the  flow.  Let  me  illus- 
trate by  a  very  homely  and  unpoetic  illustration.  If  I  wish  to  find  the 
effect  of  tea  and  coffee  on  my  child,  who  has  never  taken  tea  or  coffee, 
I  do  not  give  tea  and  coffee  together.  If  I  give  her  tea  and  coffee 
together  and  there  is  an  effect,  I  am  utterly  in  the  dark ;  it  may  be  due 
to  the  coffee  and  not  at  all  to  the  tea ;  it  may  be  due  entirely  to  the 
tea  and  not  to  the  coffee.  It  may  be  due  partly  to  the  tea  and  partly 
to  the  coffee.  It  may  be  due  to  neither  separately,  but  simply  to  the 
fact  that  the  two  have  come  together.  The  influences  which  affect 
the  flow  of  streams  and  floods  are  varied,  and  the  other  influences  are 
more  important  than  forests,  for  instance,  rainfall.  There  is  never 
a  great  flood  without  a  great  rainfall.  The  distribution  of  that  rain- 
fall during  the  year  is  another  very  important  element. 

Take  the  case,  for  instance,  in  countries  where  the  rainfall  is  prin- 
cipally in  the  form  of  snow,  in  the  winter  and  spring.  It  goes  off  and 
forms  a  flood  in  the  spring.  There  is  little  rainfall  during  the  sum- 
mer, and  the  springs  get  very  dry,  and  the  streams  practically  are 
dry  all  during  the  summer.  Perhaps  the  very  next  year  there  may  be 
the  same  amount  of  rainfall  in  the  year,  but  it  may  be  distributed 
differently.  There  may  be  very  little  in  the  spring  and  winter,  but 
there  may  be  a  large  rainfall  in  the  summer.  I  was  looking  at  a  re- 
port of  a  rainfall  the  other  day  in  which  there  had  been  in  two  con- 
secutive years  the  same  rainfall,  and  yet  in  one  year  there  was  a  run- 
off of  12  inches  and  in  the  next  year,  the  same  rainfall,  and  run-off 
with  17  inches.  As  I  say,  the  influences  which  are  due  to  the  distri- 
bution of  the  rainfall,  and  so  forth,  are  more  important  than  the 
forests,  but  the  forests  constitute  an  influence  which  can  be  controlled. 
There  are  just  two  elements  which  enter  into  the  problem  which  can 
be  controlled.  The  rainfall  can  not  be  controlled;  the  distribution 
of  the  rainfall  through  the  year  can  not  be  controlled.  All  these 
meteorological  phenomena,  varied  as  they  are,  of  course  are  entirely 
beyond  the  control  of  man.  The  forests  can  be  controlled,  and  the 
other  element  which  could  be  controlled  is  the  storage.  By  forests 
and  storage  together  the  flow  can  be  regulated  to  the  greatest  possible 
degree.  The  storage  alone,  without  ,the  control  of  the  forests,  would 
itself  be  rather  futile,  because  if  the  trees  are  cut  down  erosion  follows 
and  the  reservoirs  are  more  apt  to  fill  up  with  silt,  and  in  time  to  lose 
their  power  of  storage  because  they  lose  their  capacity. 

President  Van  Hise  has  referred  to  the  important  study  which  has 
been  made  the  past  summer  in  regard  to  the  rainfall.  It  is  a  very 
remarkable  thing  that  during  the  last  ten  years  of  the  period  studied 
there  were  more  days  of  flood  than  during  the  first  twelve  years,  and 
perhaps  a  cursory  examination  would  make  one  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  there  had  been  less  floods,  therefore,  and  that  cutting  down 
the  trees  in  the  valley  had  been  a  fatal  influence  on  the  floods.  But 
when  you  study  the  rainfall  you  will  see  the  explanation,  and  the 
thing  that  Mr.  Leighton  has  done  has  been  to  combine  those  two  as 
they  have  never  been  combined  before.  He  has  taken  the  number  of 
rain  storms  which  are  sufficient  to  produce  a  flood,  and  he  has  com- 
pared those  with  the  number  of  days  of  flood,  and  the  result  is  per- 
lectly  definite,  as  Doctor  Van  Hise  has  stated.  It  shows  an  increase 
of  flood  in  proportion  to  the  days  of  rainfall,  or  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  rain  storms,  of  about  18.75  per  cent. 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOR    THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  49 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  result  definite  unless  you  know  when  the 
rains  occurred;  that  is,  in  what  way  they  came?  As  you  suggested  a 
little  while  ago,  there  might  be  one  year  of  rainfall  that  would  give 
a  certain  number  of  floods,  and  another  year  of  precisely  equal  rain- 
fall that  would  give  a  different  number  of  floods,  because  differently 
distributed. m  Does  Mr.  Leighton's  report  take  account  of  that? 

Professor' SWAIN.  -It  takes  some  account  of  that;  yes,  sir.  There 
are  difficulties  in  tracing  any  direct  relation,  and  I  think,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  the  proper  way  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion,  the  way  which 
appeals  to  me,  is  by  a  study  of  the  elementary  influences,  a  study  of 
the  forest  bed.  the  measurement  of  the  percolation  into  the  soil,  and 
the  actual  observation  of  the  way  the  streams  come  from  the  forest 
land,  and  the  way  they  come  from  the  deforested  land.  Those,  I 
think,  will  convince  anybody  that  there  must  be  a  relation  there 
which  is  definite,  and  that  cutting  down  the  trees  has  a  large  effect  in 
diminishing  floods. 

I  would  like  to  refer  briefly  to  one  or  two  objections  which  are 
sometimes  made  to  that  theory.  Fifty  years  ago  a  French  engineer 
published  a  work  in  which  he  attempted  to  show  that  cutting  down 
the  forests  diminished  the  floods.  That  had  no  effect  on  the  French 
Government,  and  evidently  was  not  shared  by  the  government  engi- 
neers, because  the  French  Government  immediately  began  thereafter 
to  adopt  a  forest  policy  and  to  expend  large  sums  in  the  reforesta- 
tion of  the  mountains.  Recently,  within  a  few  months,  an  American 
engineer,  a  member  of  the  Corps  of  the  Engineers  of  the  Army,  has 
published  a  paper,  which  the  chairman  has  referred  to.  in  which  he 
gives  almost  the  identical  arguments  which  were  given  fifty  years  ago 
by  the  French  engineer.  I  hope  they  will  be  followed  by  the  same 
action  which  was  followed  in  France.  One  of  the  arguments  made 
is  that  sometimes  the  forests  may  increase  the  flood,  as,  for  instance, 
suppose  the  snow  lies  late  in  the  forests  and  there  comes  a  warm  rain. 
That  warm  rain  carries  off  the  snow  and  the  flood  results,  and  that 
flood  is  larger  than  would  have  resulted  from  that  warm  rain  if  the 
forests  had  not  retained  the  snow.  That  is  perfectly  clear,  but  it  is 
equaly  clear  that  if  the  forests  had  not  been  there  that  snow  would 
have  gone  off  in  the  earlier  floods,  as  Congressman  Weeks  has  sug- 
gested, and  that  those  earlier  floods  would  have  been  largely  increased. 
The  effect  of  the  forest  is  to  distribute  the  discharge  into  the  stream 
in  a  given  amount. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  Do  you  know  any  engineer  of  good  standing  who 
agrees  with  Colonel  Chittenden  in  his  conclusion  ? 

Professor  SWAIN.  I  have  not  met  with  any,  sir;  and  I  hope  that 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  will  read  the  discussion  on  Colonel 
Chitten den's  paper  which  will  appear  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
American  society  in  connection  with  the  paper  itself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  is  one  other  question  more  I  would  like  to 
ask  Mr.  Swain,  because  he  has  evidently  studied  this  very  deeply. 
You  will  remember  another  argument  of  Colonel  Chittenden  is  that 
the  forest  will  actually  diminish  the  flow  of  water  in  a  river  by  rea- 
son of  absorbing  an  ordinary  rainfall  which,  if  the  forests  were  not 
there,  would  floAv  into  the  stream' and  increase  its  volume,  but  which, 
the  forest  being  there,  is  absorbed  and  held  and  does  not  get  into  the 
stream  in  time  to  do  it  any  good. 

72538— AGR— 09 4 


50  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Professor  SWAIN.  That  is  exactly  what  we  wish  to  have  occur. 
We  want  to  have  the  forest  bed  absorb  the  water  and  thereby  give  it 
out  as  a  benefit. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  His  argument  is  this,  that  after  a  long-protracted 
drought  the  streams  get  no  benefit  whatever  of  the  small  showers  that 
fall  during  that  interval,  as  they  would  if  the  forests  were  not  there, 
but  the  forest  itself  is  giving  out  no  water,  suffering  from  the  general 
drought;  that  the  humus  and  the  leaves  of  the  trees  themselves  take 
up  this  shower  and  give  none  of  it  back  to  the  streams. 

Professor  SWAIN.  The  answer  to  that  is,  perhaps,  another  ques- 
tion, What  happens  when  there  are  no  showers  which  fall  on  those 
areas  during  the  summer?  We  had  an  example  of  that  in  New  Eng- 
land and  over  a  large  section  of  country  this  summer.  We  had  a 
drought  in  New  England  during  a  period  much  longer,  preventing 
the  water  from  running  from  the  extreme  headwaters  of  any  of  the 
streams  to  the  sea.  Colonel  Chittenden's  idea  seemed  to  be  that  he 
admits  that  the  forests  keep  up  the  flow  of  springs,  and  he  says  that 
because  each  spring  is  small  you  can  have  all  of  them  dry  up  without 
appreciable  effect,  and  then  he  goes  on  to  say  that  the  showers  will 
come  on  the  denuded  areas  you  have  on  this  watershed,  and  then  the 
next,  and  then  the  next,  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  properly  timed,  you 
will  keep  up  the  low  water  flow.  That  will  hardly  be  a  safe  method 
to  depend  on. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  drought  throughout  New  England  and  other 
Eastern  States  this  year  was  more  severe  than  had  been  known  for 
one  hundred  years,  practically. 

Professor  SWAIN.  I  do  not  know ;  it  has  been  very  severe. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  sought  to  create  the  impression  here  that 
the  conditions  which  prevailed  this  year  were  due  solely  to  the  denuda- 
tion of  the  forests? 

Professor  SWAIN.  No;  but  aggravated  by  the  denudation  of  the 
forests. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  I  would  like  to  announce,  gentlemen,  that  as  there  are 
quite  a  number  who  are  anxious  to  be  heard  from,  I  shall  be  obliged 
to  request  each  gentleman  in  the  future  to  confine  himself  within  five 
minutes,  and  I  shall  tap  on  the  table  when  the  five  minutes  are  used 
up  and  give  him  about  half  a  minute  within  which  to  close. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  W.  S.  LEE,  HYDRAULIC  ENGINEER,  OF 
CHARLOTTE,  N.  C. 

Mr.  LEE.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  confine  my  remarks  to  two 
questions,  which  you  have  asked  us  to  discuss.  The  first  is  the  flow 
of  the  streams  in  the  Appalachian  Mountains,  regarding  the  clearing 
of  the  timber  from  any  particular  stream.  I  have  been  at  work  for 
several  years  on  different  hydraulic  problems  there,  and  the  first 
thing  that  we  do  to  ascertain  the  flow  is  to  get  some  idea  of  the  tim- 
bered section  that  that  stream  is  running  through,  and  you  will  find 
that  streams  down  in  North  Carolina,  upper  South  Carolina,  and 
Tennessee  will  vary  in  the  flow  per  square  mile  of  run-off — that  is, 
in  cubic  feet  per  second — from  1.2  cubic  feet  down  to  0.28  of  a  cubic 
foot,  with  practically  the  same  rainfall  on  the  entire  area.  The 
stream  that  is  in  the  most  heavily  wooded  section  furnishes  about 


FOREST    LANDS    FOB    THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  51 

three  or  four  times  the  amount  of  water  a  square  mile  during  the 
low-water  period,  the  time  that  you  need  water  for  water  power 
purposes  or  for  navigation,  and  you  would  be  surprised  to  find  how 
close  two  streams  are  and  how  much  they  will  vary  in  flow.  But 
that  can  be  in  each  case  traced  absolutely  to  the  amount  of  cleared 
land  that  you  have  in  the  drainage  area  of  that  particular  stream. 

The  other  point  that  I  wanted  to  go  over  slightly  was  the  silt  or 
sand  that  is  deposited  by  these  streams.  I  remember  very  distinctly 
about  twelve  years  ago  I  was  on  a  water-power  plant  on  the  Seneca 
River,  just  above  the  junction  of  the  Seneca  and  the  Tallulah,  where 
the  Savannah  River  is  formed,  between  North  Carolina  and  Georgia. 
The  Seneca  River  was  a  little  to  the  east,  yet  went  back  into  the  moun- 
tains the  same  as  the  Tallulah.  This  river  was  always  muddy,  or 
carried  a  great  deal  of  silt  and  sand.  The  Tallulah  River,  that  came 
into  the  Savannah,  was  a  clear  stream.  There  was  sand  and  silt  all 
up  the  Seneca  River.  The  Tallulah  River  had  very  little,  if  any, 
but  since  that  time  the  Tallulah  River  is  each  year  gradually  becom- 
ing muddier  and  carrying  more  silt  farther  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  that  come  from  the  clearing  of  farm  land  or 
from  lumbering  operations? 

Mr.  LEE.  That  is  from  both.  There  is  a  great  deal  of  lumbering 
going  on  in  that  immediate  section,  and  this  land  was  only  farmed 
for  two  or  three  years.  Where  this  timber  is  cut  off  the  ground  is  very 
rich  from  the  deposit  of  trees,  and  you  can  grow  a  crop  for  two  or 
three  years  very  profitably,  and  then  it  soon  washes  away,  and  there 
are  plenty  of  those  slopes  that  are  cleared  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  two  or  three  crops  off  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  there  would  be  a  return  to  the  forest  ? 

Mr.  LEE.  Yes;  they  are  abandoned  and  go  through  a  process  of 
going  back  to  the  forest.  If  they  are  not  too  steep  they  will  eventually 
reforest  themselves.  I  do  not  know  that  I  should  care  to  discuss  any 
other  points. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  D.  A.  TOMPKINS,  OF  CHARLOTTE,  N.  C.,  PRESI- 
DENT OF  THE  SOUTHERN  APPALACHIAN  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  phase  of  this  subject  that  I  will 
undertake  to  touch  upon  is  the  same  as  Mr.  Lee  has  spoken  upon, 
but  from  a  little  different  point  of  view.  I  have  had  the  water  power 
for  a  company  in  North  Carolina  on  one  of  the  streams  for  ten  years, 
and  built  a  cotton  mill  to  use  the  water  power.  I  took  very  great 
pains  to  get  what  was  the  preceding  high- water  mark,  in  order  that 
we  could  put  the  mill  floor  above  the  possibility  of  water  getting 
into  it,  and  we  made  an  allowance  of  3  feet.  Within  the  period  that 
this  mill  has  been  built  there  has  been  a  constant  denudation  of  the 
forest  on  account  of  timbering  and  other  things,  and  the  high- water 
mark  has  been  constantly  rising  until  the  last  flow  came  within  6 
inches  of  the  floor  which  we  had  put  about  3  feet  above  the  high- 
water  mark.  At  the  same  time,  in  the  interim  of  the  floods,  the 
water  that  goes  over  the  dam  has  diminished  certainly  one-third, 
making  wider  and  wider  variation  between  the  water  that  can  be 
used  all  the  year  for  power  and  the  water  that  comes  as  a  flood.  This 
is  not  only  applicable  in  that  particular  case,  but  it  is  applicable  in 


52  FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS. 

a  great  many  other  cases  of  water  powers  and  in  the  cases  of  water 
powers  that  are  being  developed  for  general  use,  aggregating,  per- 
haps, all  told,  200,000  horsepower  of  water  power — powers  that  are 
doing  the  work  of  at  least  2,000,000  people,  and  that  means  to  us,  on 
account  of  this  changing  condition  which  I  observed  in  a  practical 
way,  that  there  is  imminent  peril  to  a  large  vested  interest  and  to  the 
vocations  of  a  great  many  people. 

Now,  you  appropriate  $100,000,000  a  year  to  support  an  army  to 
defend  the  people  of  this  country  against  imminent  peril ;  you  support 
a  navy,  at  a  cost  of  $125,000,000.  We  believe  that  $5,000,000  is  an 
exceedingly  modest  sum  to  ask  for  to  protect  the  large  vested  interests 
throughout  the  eastern  part  of  the  United  States  agains't  an  immi- 
nent peril,  which  is  just  as  serious  as  invasion  would  be.  Suppose 
Boston  was  threatened  with  an  invasion  that  was  going  to  do  a  great 
injury,  you  would  appropriate  $50,000,000  inside  of  two  days  to  re- 
lieve Boston  of  that  danger.  We  are  undoubtedly  in  the  presence 
of  an  imminent  danger  as  serious  as  if  Boston  was  going  to  be  at- 
tacked from  the  sea  or  by  land.  We  think,  also,  that  it  is  a  practical 
question,  that  you  can  argue  here  indefinitely  and  never  reach  any 
conclusions  about  a  great  many  phases  of  the  subject  that  are 
naturally  going  to  be  worked  out  by  scientific  people  afterwards,  and 
not  by  people  in  Congress ;  whether  the  water  flows  from  the  streams 
into  one  stream  or  another  will  be  a  subject  that  will  have  to  be 
evolved  from  experience,  and  if  you  were  to  appropriate  enough 
money  to  make  a  beginning,  then  you  would  have  some  experience, 
and  some  experts  who  could  better  tell  you  how  to  proceed  next. 
That  picture  at  your  window  represents  a  view  of  forest  and  stream. 
That  was  one  of  the  conditions  attracting  people  from  other  countries 
to  this,  our  forefathers.  President  Koosevelt  sent  some  pictures 
yesterday  to  Congress  that  show  the  condition  a  country  may  be 
brought  to  by  neglect.  You  have  all  heard,  of  course,  that"  when  the 
hills  of  Lebanon  were  forested  with  cedars,  Palestine  supported 
ten  millions  of  people  in  opulence.  We  know  that  to-day  Palestine 
supports  less  than  500,000  people  in  poverty.  There  was  a  time  when 
in  Jerusalem  there  was  a  building  finer  than  this  one,  they  say,  and 
yet  what  is  that  building  to-day,  and  its  condition  was  largely  brought 
about  by  the  physical  degeneration  of  the  country.  We  ask  you  to 
make  an  appropriation  and  make  a  start  now.  We  ask  it  in  absolute 
good  faith  and  in  the  belief  that  there  is  an  imminent  peril,  and  that 
you  should  as  promptly  do  this  as  you  would  if  there  was  an  invasion 
of  the  country;  and  when  you  make  a  start  you  will  not  only  be  con- 
vinced of  the  importance  of  keeping  it  up,  but  you  will  get  the  skill 
and  knowledge  of  the  facts  to  base  the  project  on  that  ultimately  it 
will  not  cost  the  Government  anything,  because  the  rivers  will  bring 
in  enough  to  pay  for  the  thing. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  How  far  back  did  you  go  to  get  that  high-water 
mark  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  I  went  back  to  the  time  when  people  80  years  old 
had  gotten  it,  as  far  back  as  their  memories  would  carry.  We  got 
the  best  average  result  through  the  knowledge  of  the  oldest  inhabit- 
ants, and  I  think  we  got  it  pretty  nearly  right,  because  we  have 
observed  that  the  high-water  mark  has  been  increasing  since.  We 
measured  the  low- water  flow  before  we  bought  the  property,  and  we 


FOREST    LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  53 

have  measured  it  lately,  and  it  is  very  seriously  diminished.  We 
know  that  high  water  is  higher  than  it  ever  was  before.  It  is 
rapidly  coming  to  the  time  when  we  should  take  hold  of  this  subject, 
because  a  few  years  will  make  all  the  difference  in  the  world.  The 
diminution  and  the  increase  of  floods  in  the  drought  are  separating 
themselves  in  a  geometric  ratio  in  just  a  few  years. 

Mr.  WEEKS.  Suppose  you  were  going  to  build  a  dam  on  the  stream 
to-day,  would  you  build  any  stronger  dam  to  develop  the  same 
horsepower  than  you  did  ten  years  ago  when  you  built  the  one  you 
speak  of? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  dam  that  I  did  build  takes  these  floods  and 
just  rolls  them  over  the  top,  and  it  does  not  make  any  difference 
about  the  flood  so  far  as  it  holds  the  water;  the  excess  water  flows 
over  the  dams.  Our  trouble  is  twofold,  less  water  in  a  dry  time  and 
a  filling  up  of  the  pond.  Our  pond  is  practically  filled  up  there.  We 
have  to  depend  on  the  regular  flow  of  water,  and  the  quantity  of  the 
water  flowing  in  in  drought  is  less  than  it  used  to  be.  That  is,  we 
have  less  water  at  times  than  we  used  to  have. 

Mr.  HASKINS.  It  fills  up  with  silt  and  sand  ? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  Yes,  sir;  it  fills  up  with  silt  and  sand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  think  that  diminished  flow  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  your  reservoir  is  filled  up? 

Mr.  TOMPKINS.  The  diminished  flow  is  not,  but  if  the  silt  and 
sand  did  not  come  down,  we  could  store  water  all  night  and  run  it 
during  the  day.  That  resource  has  been  completely  taken  away  from 
us,  but  the  actual  flow  is  less  than  it  used  to  be.  We  do  not  pretend 
to  know  just  the  best  way  to  proceed  about  this  thing,  and  we  ask 
Congress  to  appoint  people  who  do  know  how  to  remedy  it  and  we 
will  do  it  promptly. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  The  next  gentleman  we  shall  hear  will  be  Mr.  C.  C. 
Goodrich,  of  Connecticut. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  C.  C.  GOODRICH,  OF  CONNECTICUT,  GENERAL 
MANAGER  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  AND  HARTFORD  GENERAL 
TRANSPORTATION  COMPANY. 

Mr.  GOODRICH.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
have  been  requested  by  Governor  Woodruff  to  appear  at  this  hear- 
ing. I  do  not  know  that  the  Governor  expected  me  to  say  anything, 
because  I  am  not  a  speaker;  I  am  not  used  to  appearing  before  a 
committee,  and  yet  the  chairman  this  morning  asked  for  informa- 
tion on  certain  points  that  it  did  seem  to  me,  perhaps,  I  could  be 
of  use  to  him  in.  First,  as  to  the  flow  of  the  Connecticut  River,  as 
observed,  and  as  to  the  building  of  the  bars  and  the  final  disposition 
of  the  sand  as  it  reaches  the  sea.  I  have  been  for  forty  years  engaged 
in  marine  commerce,  at  the  present  time  handling  more  than  40  ves- 
sels of  from  500  to  5,000  tons  register.  I  have  observed  in  all  these 
years,  going  back  even  further  than  my  service  as  the  manager  or 
vice-president,  and  I  remember  the  time  when  our  river,  forty  years 
ago.  received  its  high-water  season  and  continued  it  away  along  un- 
til the  middle  of  June,  when  the  common  inquiry  was.  u  How  much 
snow  is  there  left  in  the  forests  in  the  White  Mountains  in  New 
Hampshire  and  in  Vermont?  "  We  could  depend  in  those  years 
upon  operating  without  difficulty  from  low  water  until  about  the 


54  FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

15th  of  June.  In  those  days  the  Government  had  not  undertaken 
the  care  of  its  rivers  and  its  waterways  as  within  the  last  twenty 
years.  The  result  was  that  those  who  were  using  the  rivers  for  their 
commerce  were  obliged  to  have  their  own  dredges  for  service  in  sum- 
mer, their  own  lighting  system  for  the  various  rivers,  and  their  own 
range  lights  to  guide  across  the  various  bars  which  are  forming  be- 
tween Hartford,  Conn.,  and  Long  Island  Sound.  In  that  service 
we  could  start  our  dredges  about  the  10th  of  May,  in  which  time  the 
flow  got  so  that  we  could  reach  the  bar  in  about  20  feet,  and  about 
the  1st  of  July  we  had  the  courses  cleared  out  at  an  expense  of  about 
$58.000,  and  the  rest  of  the  season  we  could  go  on  with  our  commerce. 

In  the  last  twenty  years,  and  right  down  to  the  present  time,  in  an 
aggravated  way,  the  length  of  high-water  flow  in  spring  has  been 
exceedingly  shortened.  Starting  with  March,  freshet  after  freshet 
comes  with  an  ijnmense  waste  of  water,  freshets  ranging  from  15  to 
20  feet  follow  close  upon  one  another,  so  that  we  lose  the  use  of  the 
water,  and  by  the  20th  of  May,  instead  of  the  15th  of  June,  we  arrive 
at  a  point  where  a  full  loaded  passenger  steamer  of  1,500  tons  must 
wait,  must  stop,  or  else  instead  of  dredging  in  accordance  with  the 
present  channel  of  150  feet  wide,  with  9  feet  at  low  water  in  summer, 
we  must  leave  one  bar  and  immediately  go  to  another,  where  we  have 
only  a  25-foot  channel,  just  enough  to  drop  the  keel  into  it,  and  then 
make  another  10  miles,  and  still  another  10  miles,  and  then  put  in 
another  50  or  60  feet  wide  at  the  bottom  of  the  slope,  and  gradually 
in  that  way  we  can  keep  the  daily  line  of  passenger  steamers  that 
operate  in  that  river  in  operation  by  having  every  great  steamer  and 
having  the  Government  engineers  immediately  attack  another  bar 
and  keep  going.  We  have  been  able  to  navigate  very  successfully 
there,  and  in  that  time  we  have  been  able  to  dredge  through  those 
bars,  only  half  the  width  that  the  Government  project  calls  for. 

If  we  continued  and  carried  out  and  spent  the  rest  of  the  appro- 
priation, amounting  in  those  days  to  about  $16,000  for  two  years, 
or  about  $20,000,  out  of  which  the  Government  received  its  proportion 
for  the  proportionate  expense  of  the  engineering  department  in 
that  district,  we  found  we  were  throwing  away  the  money,  that  we 
could  get  through  with  a  70-foot  channel,  and  that  we  have  done  right 
down  to  the  present  year  for  the  last  ten  years,  and  I  presume  we  may 
continue  to  get  along  in  that  way  for  a  good  while  to  come.  In 
speaking  of  the  moving  of  this  sand,  which  I  would  like  to  take  up 
now.  for  I  think,  without  having  statistics  that  the  chairman  asked 
for,  I  have  forty  years  of  practical  experience,  and  I  know  that  which 
is  coming  and  that  which  has  come.  I  know  how  the  sand  has 
come  through  the  forest  down  there,  and  how  it  moves ;  that  the  sand 
is  composed  of  a  clean,  white  grit,  as  sharp  as  diamonds;  that  it  is 
heavier  than  the  alluvial  soil.  At  every  point  from  Hartford  to 
the  Sound,  at  every  wide  bank,  this  sand  deposits,  and  that  makes  the 
bar,  say,  from  300  to  1,600  feet  across,  so  in  the  three  miles  we  may 
have  from  one  to  three  miles  of  dredging  in  each  year.  As  we  dredge 
those  bars,  that  sand,  under  the  direction  of  the  officers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, is  deposited  in  the  only  place  where  it  can  be  put,  as  far  out 
of  the  channel  as  we  can  put  it.  When  the  river  carries  down  silt 
from  the  mountain  it  brings  a  deposit,  and  that  deposit  is  dropped 
below  this  bar,  and  in  the  course  of  the  next  year  it  brings  up  at  the 
next  place,  and  in  the  course  of  a  number  of  years  it  reaches  the 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  55 

mouth  of  the  Connecticut  River.  At  that  point  it  is  building  a  shoal 
straight  off  to  sea  on  the  east  side  of  the  mouth  of  the  river,  being 
one  and  one-half  miles  shoaling  water,  to  as  shoal  as  three  feet  on 
the  crest  of  the  bar,  and  where  the  buoy  guards  the  outer  edge  you 
immediately  drop  off  to  120  feet.  I  am  now  looking  to  south.  Look- 
ing to  the  east,  that  bar  extends  five  miles  to  the  eastward.  The 
extensions  are  going  on  at  the  outskirts. 

Looking  soundward,  over  between  the  jetties  at  the  mouth  of  the 
river,  we  have  about  3  miles  out  the  long  sand  shoals,  which  takes 
that  portion  and  carries  it  to  the  west.  That  is  6  miles  long,  and 
there  is  a  passage  between  that  and  the  main  shore.  It  lies  pretty 
nearly  in  mid  sound.  That  drops  off  into  water  from  8  to  12  feet, 
but  150  feet  abreast  of  the  light-vessel  that  is  placed  there  to  guard 
it,  called  "  Cornfield  light  shoal  vessel."  It  might  be  thought  that 
the  constant  action  in  washing  this  sand  off  to  sea  must  eventually 
blockade  the  mouth  of  the  river.  I  noticed  that  the  chairman  spoke 
this  morning  of  the  Columbia  River.  I  know  that  the  Connecticut 
River,  when  you  have  extended  this  shoal  off  1^  miles  from  shore 
and  have  practically  made  a  dam  a  mile  and  a  half  into  the  Sound, 
you  have  so  confined  the  easterly  and  westerly  flows  of  those  tides 
past  the  Connecticut  River,  that  from  that  day  forward  the  rapidity 
and  force  of  the  current  past  the  eastern  buoy  and  the  western  spar 
on  the  Cornfield  Shoal  would  have  such  great  rapidity  that  at  least 
2£  feet  in  three  years  on  each  tide  of  water  is  a  mass  of  moving 
smooth  sand,  rolling  over  and  over,  and  coming  to  the  surface  in 
perfect  piles;  so  if  the  Connecticut  River  continued  to  discharge  this 
great  mass  forever,  there  would  be  no  use  of  farther  -building  at 
this  point  toward  the  west.  The  extension  would  be  to  the  east  and 
west,  I  know  that  20  miles  to  the  westward  and  eastward,  as  it 
moves  out  of  this  rapid  current,  it  never  gets  back  toward  the  Con- 
necticut River,  but  it  does  line  the  shore  for  all  those  miles  with 
every  southwest  storm  or  southeast  storm.  It  is  driven  on  the  shore 
until  the  shore  now  extends  20  miles  to  the  westward  and  30  to  the 
eastward.  There  is  no  alluvial  mud  in  it. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  there  is  any  other  matter  that  I  could  help 
you  at  all  on,  or  that  you  would  like  to  ask  me,  for  my  experience 
is  all  in  marine  work,  and  consequently  I  do  not  think  I  am  able  to 
help  you  much  otherwise,  I  will  be  glad  to  answer  any  questions.  I 
will  say  this,  that  on  that  same  long  sand  shoal  in  thirty-five  years 
there  have  been  more  than  20  vessels  wrecked,  of  which  my  own 
fleet  furnished  2. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  there  been  any  material  change  in  that  time 
in  the  area  of  cultivated  land  along  the  watershed  of  this  river  ? 

Mr.  GOODRICH.  I  do  not  think  that  in  the  forty  years  that  the  cul- 
tivated area  has  increased  any.  The  fact  is  that  the  great  meadows 
there  are  level,  and  when  a  20-foot  freshet  floods  them  they  are 
greatly  productive  of  fine  grass,  but  I  will  say  that  not  20  per  cent 
of  these  meadows  are  cultivated.  The  country  further  back  is  culti- 
vated to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  but  not  so  greatly  as  to  foul  the  dis- 
charge in  the  river.  Our  water  finds  its  way  to  the  sea,  with  the 
exception  of  a  short  time,  perhaps  a  month  in  a  year,  in  a  very  clear 
and  cleanly  flow. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  The  next  speaker  will  be  Mr.  McFarland,  president 
of  the  American  Civic  Association. 


56  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  McFARLAND,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
CIVIC  ASSOCIATION. 

Mr.  MCFARLAND.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  have  no  statistics 
to  present  and  very  little  time  to  take.  I  speak  for  the  American 
Civic  Association,  which  has  to  do  with  about  100,000  persons  inter- 
ested in  making  a  better  and  more  beautiful  America.  We  want 
the  forests  because  we  need  them  for  their  health,  their  comfort,  and 
the  pleasant  part  of  living.  We  want  them  because  they  are  good  to 
see  and  good  to  be  in,  as  well  as  good  to  use.  We  want  forests  be- 
cause they  are  beautiful  as  well  as  useful,  because  they  give  us  the 
rest  and  peace  and  pleasure  that  comes  to  those  who  go  into  the 
forests,  at  the  same  time  furnishing  us  with  the  vast  resources  in  com- 
mercial life  included  in  the  timber  industry.  We  want  forests  be- 
cause they  are  the  one  element  of  our  national  wastefulness  which 
we  can  both  have  and  use.  We  are  here  in  the  new  Office  Building. 
It  is  made  of  stone.  The  stone  came  from  the  earth  and  no  more 
stone  is  growing.  It  is  lighted  by  metal  fixtures  and  glass  globes, 
all  made  from  the  earth,  and  no  more  metal  and  glass  is  growing. 
There  is  wood  in  the  room  and  that  we  ask  you  to  preserve.  The 
building  itself  is  created  from  the  inexhaustible  resources  of  the  earth, 
and  we  ask  that  in  serving  beauty,  in  serving  health,  and  making 
pleasant  and  profitable  the  lives  of  citizens,  we  also  conserve  these 
great  national  resources  which  we  so  greatly  need.  We  want,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  forests  shall  be  had  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  so 
that  the  national  flag  may  stay  floating  on  the  staff.  The  flag  itself 
we  can  make  over  again,  because  the  wool  will  continue  to  grow  on 
the  backs  of  the  sheep,  at  least  to  a  certain  degree,  but  after  we  have 
denuded  the  forests  we  will  have  to  have  in  that  case  iron  flag  poles. 
Taking  it  as  a  national  question,  we  believe  that  we  can  hold  up 
the  national  honor  when  the  flag  is  floating  from  wooden  poles. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  attitude  of  the  gentleman 
from  North  Carolina  who  discussed  the  problem  is  the  right  one. 
You  are  entering  practically  upon  a  national  forest  policy,  of  which 
this  Appalachian  and  White  Mountain  bill  is  but  an  incident.  It  is, 
it  seems  to  me,  worth  while  to  have  instituted  a  national-forest  policy 
for  the  national  welfare  and  the  national  defense,  and  I  submit  to 
you,  with  some  little  knowledge  of  how  the  country  looks  upon  this 
thing,  that  you  will  be  supported  in  any  action  you  take  which  looks 
to  the  creation  of  a  national-forest  policy,  as  much  as  to  the  creation 
and  continuance  of  a  national-irrigation  policy.  Vast  millions  are 
spent  for  national  defense  and  homes.  We  have  the  post-office  every- 
where: we  have  rural  free  delivery  everywhere:  we  certainly  are  not 
specially  provided  with  national  control  of  forests  everywhere.  We 
in  the  East  look  with  some  regret  also  upon  the  West  with  its  forests, 
purely  incidental  forests,  gentlemen,  and  we  hope  that  there  may  be 
forests  in  the  East.  Consider,  if  you  please,  that  the  present  forest 
condition  is  an  advantageous  condition.  The  forest  reserves  owned 
by  the  National  Government  just  happened;  we  never  bought  that 
part  of  the  national  domain  upon  which  it  did  happen  that  trees 
were  growing.  In  the  East  there  is  no  such  condition.  We  speak  for 
a  wide-spread  national-forest  policy,  of  which  the  present  incidental 
action  is  but  an  item,  which  will  round  up  into  the  guarding  by  the 


FOKEST    LANDS    FOR    THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  57 

Government — by  the  Federal  Government  in  the  case  of  the  weakness 
or  the  unwillingness  of  the  State — of  that  resource  without  which  we 
can  not  live,  not  only  for  its  commercial  importance,  but  for  its  in- 
fluence on  our  lives,  our  morals,  our  health,  and  the  welfare  of  the 
country  in  which  we  live. 

i 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.   C.  J.  H.   WOODBURY,   SECRETARY  OF  THE 
NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  COTTON  MANUFACTURERS. 

Mr.  WOODBTJRY.  Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  last  hearing  I  appeared  be- 
fore you  with  a  committee  of  our  association,  which  includes  all  of 
the  principal  cotton  mills  from  the  Atlantic  States,  excepting  Florida, 
and  also  Alabama  and  Mississippi.  These  twelve  thousand  and  odd 
men  in  executive  positions  in  the  cotton  mills,  operate  over  20,000,000 
spindles,  with  a  capital,  with  the  subsidiary  bleachers  and  dye  works, 
of  something  like  $750,000,000.  They  are  viewing  with  apprehension 
this  terrible  peril  of  the  waste  by  flood,  and  they  instructed  me  to 
come  here  and  express  their  sincere  wish  that  you  would  take  some 
action  along  the  line  of  these  hearings,  of  which  you  have  had  many 
particulars,  and  therefore  on  account  of  the  shortness  of  the  time  I 
will  omit  going  into  those  particulars,  stating  that  these  cotton  manu- 
facturers in  the  several  States  have  done  all  that  they  could  .in  the 
matter  of  the  State  reserves,  town  reserves,  and  some  corporations 
are  planting  great  numbers  of  trees,  two  of  them  30,000  apiece  to  my 
knowledge,  on  the  lands  which  they  happen  to  control  on  their  water- 
sheds, and  that  is  all  I  have  to  oner,  on  account  of  the  shortness  of 
the  time.  The  feeling  is  in  favor  of  this  project  on  the  part  of  these 
manufacturers,  whose  work  has  been  held  up  by  the  freshets  and 
droughts,  which  have  also  shut  off  not  merely  the  operation  of  the 
manufacturing  but  probably  its  capital,  and  also  that  of  the  thou- 
sands and  thousands  of  the  help  which  they  employ.  The  question 
is  regarded  as  an  exceedingly  serious  one,  and  one  that  is  growing  in 
regard  to  what  I  believe  to  be  the  greatest  single  industry  in  this 
country. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  A.  W.  BUTLER,  OF  ROCKLAND,  ME.,  REPRE- 
SENTING GOVERNOR  WILLIAM  T.  COBB. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I  come  here  at  the  request  of  Governor  Cobb,  as  he 
was  detained  by  official  business  in  -Maine.  I  know  that  the  governor 
is  much  interested  in  this  measure.  I  find  that  there  is  a  large  con- 
stituency in  Maine  that  are  interested  in  it  and  believe  in  immediate 
action,  so  far  as  it  is  possible  or  so  far  as  it  may  be  possible  for  imme- 
diate favorable  consideration.  We  not  only  feel  interested  for  these 
particular  localities,  but  for  the  general  effect  upon  our  States,  in 
which  we  believe  there  should  be  a  wider  an.d  larger  supervision  of 
the  forests  and  the  general  resources.  I  have  talked  with  two  men 
to-day  from  Maine  who  are  interested  and  engaged  in  the  lumber 
business  in  Maine,  and  they  expressed  to  me  very  earnestly  their  de- 
sire and  wish  that  this  measure  should  be  adopted,  and  that  no  fur- 
ther delay  than  was  possible  to  take  immediate  action  should  be  had, 
because  our  physical  conditions  are  changing.  Our  forests  are  being 
cut  off  and  our  water  supply  diminished.  It  is  my  own  view  *nd  my 
earnest  wish,  and  I  think  I  represent  a  large  constituency,  that  yoi» 
will  take  favorable  action  upon  this  subject. 


58  FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  GEORGE  L.  GAY,  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  AMERI- 
CAN MEDICAL  ASSOCIATION. 

Doctor  GAY.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  I 
have  been  asked  to  appear  here  as  the  representative  of  the  American 
Medical  Association,  the  largest  medical  organization  in  the  country. 
There  are  three  of  that  association  here,  Doctor  Jacobi,  of  New  York, 
Doctor  Mussey,  of  Philadelphia,  and  myself  from  Boston.  Doctor 
Jacohi  is  at  the  New  Willard  attending  the  conservation  commission 
having  its  meetings  there. 

Governor  Guild  asked  me  to  speak  to  you  for  a  moment  as  to  the 
results  of  the  low  streams  upon  the  health  of  the  community.  If  there 
is  a  doctor  on  the  committee,  and  I  hope  there  is,  for  there  ought  to 
be  a  doctor  on  every  committee  that  has  anything  to  do  with  public 
health,  he  knows  very  well,  if  he  has  lived  in  the  country,  that  there 
is  more  sickness  when  the  streams  are  low  than  there  is  when  the 
streams  are  high.  There  is  one  disease  that  is  particularly  a  water- 
borne  disease,  and  that  is  typhoid  fever.  I  hope  you  have  all  had  it, 
gentlemen,  because  if  you  have,  you  will  not  have  it  again.  If  you 
have  not,  you  are  in  daily  risk  of  getting  it.  It  is  carried  in  water 
more  than  it  is  carried  in  any  other  possible  way,  and  while  this  is 
not  the  time  or  the  occasion  for  the  committee  to  say  anything  about 
pollution  of  streams,  yet  this  Congress  will  never  do  its  duty  to  the 
people  of  this  country  until  they  prohibit  the  pollution  of  water 
resources.  Why  the  inhabitants  of  one  state  should  be  obliged  to 
drink  the  excreta  of  another  state,  the  typhoid  fever  poison  or  any 
other  poison  of  another  state,  passes  our  comprehension. 

The  low  stream,  as  I  say,  is  a  constant  source  of  danger.  We  have 
30,000  deaths  from  typhoid  fever  in  this  country  every  year.  We 
have  more  than  200,000  cases  of  typhoid  fever  in  the  country  every 
year.  A  case  of  typhoid  fever  that  gets  well  in  two  months  is  a  for- 
tunate case.  That  means  400,000  months  of  lost  time,  supposing  they 
were  all  laboring  people,  wage  earners,  which  of  course  they  are  not. 
Anybody  who  is  fond  of  figures  can  carry  out  that  computation  to  his 
satisfaction.  It  is  one  of  the  most  widespread  diseases.  There  are 
only  one  or  two  that  beat  it — consumption  and  pneumonia — and  it 
is  a  preventable  disease.  There  are  many  diseases  that  are  not  pre- 
ventable and  we  are  not  to  blame  for  them,  but  when  we  have  a  pre- 
ventable disease  it  is  our  duty  to.  do  all  we  can  to  prevent  it,  and 
keeping  our  streams  full  of  water  is  one  of  the  methods  of  preven- 
tion, and  the  other  very  important  method  of  prevention  I  hope  will 
come  before  Congress  before  many  years.  I  thank  you  gentlemen  for 
your  attention. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  will  endeavor  to  make  our  word 
good,  and  on  behalf  of  all  of  the  interests  that  are  here  represented,  it 
gives  me  great  pleasure  to  express  our  appreciation  of  the  great  cour- 
tesy and  consideration  that  you  gentlemen  have  given  us  in  the 
patient  hearing  and  the  patient  manner  in  which  you  have  listened 
to  what  he  have  all  had  to  say.  The  knowledge  which  you  have  ob- 
tained from  your  study  of  this  question  and  its  merits  has  impressed 
all  of  us  who  have  been  here  to-day. 

The  ^questions  that  have  been  asked  by  your  distinguished  self  as 
chairman  and  the  other  members  of  your  committee  have  all  been 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  59 

questions  of  the  most  peninent  nature,  some  of  which  should  have 
been  answered  in  a  more  pertinent  way  than  they  have  been  an- 
swered ;  and  the  only  reason,  perhaps,  that  they  were  not  answered  as 
conclusively  or  as  convincingly  as  they  should  have  been  may  have 
been  because  the  questions  have  been  asked  of  the  wrong  man,  and 
some  of  us  feel  that  when  we  are  asked  a  question  on  a  subject  with 
which  we  are  not  perfectly  familiar  we  ought  to  be  frank  enough  to 
say  we  are  not  familiar  with  that  subject  and  that  somebody  else 
ought  to  be  asked  that  question,  and  therefore  not  jeopardize  a  case, 
the  real  merits  of  which  we  are  most  anxious  to  uphold.  We  have 
with  us  a  large  number  of  people  who  would  like  to  have  been  heard. 
We  have  the  president  of  the  Orange  Judd  Agricultural  Publishing 
Company;  Ralph  W.  Pope,  secretary  of  the  American  Institute  of 
Electrical  Engineers;  Herbert  Nj^oick;  Mr.  E.  A.  Start,  secretary  of 
the  Massachusetts  Forestry  Association;  and  Mr.  F.  W.  Rane,  state 
forester  of  Massachusetts.  I  would  like  to  have  the  stenographer  to 
take  their  names  as  being  among  those  present  who  would  like  to  have 
been  presented  to  your  committee ;  and  in  thanking  you,  we  sincerely 
hope — in  fact,  we  feel  confident — that  nothing  we  can  say  can  further 
impress  you  gentlemen  with  the  importance  and  significance  of  what 
we  are  asking,  and  if  there  is  anything  that  we  can  do  to  help  you  to 
find  a  way,  we  would  like  to  do  it,  and  we  sincerely  hope  you  will  find 
a  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  feels  that  it  is  under  obligations  to 
you,  to  Governor  Guild,  and  to  the  other  governors  and  gentlemen 
who  have  appeared  here  to-day,  for  the  information  that  has  been 
brought  before  us.  We  hope  you  realize  that  it  is  one  thing  to  notice 
a  desirable  object  to  be  gained,  and  quite  another  thing  to  assume 
the  responsibility  of  determining  exactly  the  means  through  which 
that  object  shall  be  reached.  I  realize  myself  that  those  who  have 
been  for  so  many  years  advocating  this  measure  may  feel  justified  in 
a  degree  of  resentment,  if  I  might  use  so  strong  a  term,  at  the  delays 
that  have  resulted. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  If  I  may  interrupt  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  t  would 
rather  say  that  I  think  there  is  no  feeling  represented  here  by  anyone 
of  resentment ;  it  is  rather  one  of  sorrow  that  it  has  not  been  possible 
to  take  this  action. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  felt  as  if  I  were  using  a  little  stronger  word 
than  the  occasion  required,  but  the  right  one  did  not  come  to  my 
mind.  The  idea  I  wish  to  convey  to  your  mind,  however,  and  to  the 
minds  of  the  other  gentlemen  here,  is  that  this  committee  appreciates 
the  responsibility  that  rests  upon  it,  and  is  earnestly  and  honestly 
and  patriotically  trying  to  do  its  duty  in  the  premises,  and  I  wish  to 
repeat  the  expression  of  my  thanks  to  you  and  those  who  have  been 
here  for  the  help  you  have  'given  us. 

Mr.  HARVEY.  It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  state  sincerely  that  I 
believe  every  one  who  has  appeared  before  you  honestly  believes  that 
the  committee  is  honest  and  sincere  and  anxious  to  do  what  can  be 
done,  if  it  can  find  a  way  to  do  it. 

(Thereupon,  at  4  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


60  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES, 

January  28, 1909. 

At  an  executive  session  of  the  committee  held  on  this  date  a  motion 
prevailed  that  all  after  the  enacting  clause  of  S.  4825  be  stricken  out 
and  the  following  (known  as  the  "  Weeks  bill  ")  be  substituted: 

AN   ACT   For   acquiring   national    forests   in   the    Southern    Appalachian    Mountains   and 
White  Mountains. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in,  Congress  assembled,  That  the  consent  of  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  is  hereby  given  to  each  of  the  several  States  of  the  Union  to 
enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact,  not  iu  conflict  with  any  law  of  the  United 
States,  with  any  other  State  or  States,  for  the  purpose  of  conserving  the  forests 
and  the  water  supply  of  the  States  entering  into  such  agreement  or  compact. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  is  hereby  appropriated 
and  made  available  until  expended,  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  National  Treasury 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to  cooperate 
with  any  State  or  group  of  States,  when  requested  to  do  so,  in  the  protection 
from  fire  of  the  forested  watersheds  of  navigable  streams,  and  the  Secretary 
of  Agriculture  is  hereby  authorized,  and  on  such  conditions  as  he  deems  wise, 
to  stipulate  and  agree  with  any  State  or  group  of  States  to  cooperate  in  the 
organization  and  maintenance  of  a  system  of  fire  protection  on  any  private  or 
state  forest  lands  within  such  State  or  States  and  situated  upon  the  watershed 
of  a  navigable  river :  Provided,  That  no  such  stipulation  or  agreement  shall 
be  made  with  any  State  which  has  not  provided  by  law  for  a  system  of  forest- 
fire  protection :  Provided  further,  That  in  no  case  shall  the  amount  expended  in 
any  State  exceed  in  any  fiscal  year  the  amount  appropriated  by  that  State  for 
the  same  purpose  during  the  same  fiscal  year. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  for  the  further  protection  of  the 
watersheds  of  said  navigable  streams,  may,  in  his  discretion,  and  he  is  hereby 
authorized,  on  such  conditions  as  he  deems  wise,  to  stipulate  and  agree  to 
administer  and  protect  for  a  definite  term  of  years  any  private  forest  lands 
situated  upon  any  such  watershed  whereon  lands  may  be  permanently  reserved, 
held,  and  administered  as  national  forest  lands;  but  such  stipulation  or  agree- 
ment shall  provide  that  the  owner  of  such  private  lands  shall  cut  and  remove 
the  timber  thereon  only  under  such  rules  and  regulations,  to  be  expressed  in  the 
stipulation  or  agreement,  as  will  provide  for  the  protection  of  the  forest  in  the 
aid  of  navigation:  Provided,  That  in  no  case  shall  the  United  States  be  liable 
for  any  damage  resulting  from  fire  or  any  other  cause. 

SEC.  4.  That  from  the  receipts  accruing  from  the  sale  or  disposal  of  any 
products  or  the  use  of  lands  or  resources  from  public  lands,  now  or  hereafter  to 
be  set  aside  as  national  forests,  that  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  turned  into 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  and  which  are  not  otherwise  appropriated, 
there  is  hereby  appropriated  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  nineteen 
hundred  and  nine,  the  sum  of  one  million  dollars,  and  for  each  fiscal  year  there- 
after a  sum  not  to  exceed  two  million  dollars  for  use  in  the  examination,  survey, 
and  acquirement  of  lands  located  on  the  headwaters  of  navigable  streams  or 
those  which  are  being  or  which  may  be  developed  for  navigable  purposes: 
Provided,  That  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  expire  by  limitation  on  the 
thirtieth  day  of  June,  nineteen  hundred  and  nineteen. 

SEC.  5.  That  a  commission,  to  be  known  as  the  "National  Forest  Reservation 
Commission,"  consisting  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  and  one  member  of  the,  Senate,  to  be  selected  by 
the  President  of  the  Senate,  and  one  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
to  be  selected  by  the  Speaker,  is  hereby  created  and  authorized  to  consider  and 
pass  upon  such  lands  as  may  be  recommended  for  purchase  as  provided  in  sec- 
tion six  of  this  act,  and  to  fix  the  price  or  prices  at  which  such  lands  may  be 
purchased,  and  no  purchases  shall  be  made  of  any  lands  until  such  lands  have 
been  duly  approved  for  purchase  by  said  commission:  Provided,  That  the  mem- 
bers of  the  commission  herein  created  shall  serve  as  such  only  during  their  in- 
cumbency in  their  respective  official  positions;  and  any  vacancy  on  the  com- 
mission shall  be  filled  in  the  manner  as  the  original  appointment. 

SEC.  6.  That  the  commission  hereby  appointed  shall,  through  its  president, 
annually  report  to  Congress,  not  later  than  the  first  Monday  in  December,  the 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB,   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  61 

operations  and  expenditures  of  the  commission,  in  detail,  during  the  preceding 
fiscal  ye;ir. 

SEC.  7.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  examine,  locate,  and  recommend  for  purchase  such  lands  as  in  his  judgment 
may  be  necessary  to  the  regulation  of  the  flow  of  navigable  streams,  and  to 
report  to  the  National  Forest  Reservation  Commission  the  results  of  such  exam- 
inations: Provided,  That  before  any  lands  are  purchased  by  the  National  Forest 
Reservation  Commission  said  lands  shall  be  examined  by  the  Geological  Sur- 
vey and  a  report  made  to  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  showing  that  the  control 
of  such  lands  will  promote  or  protect  the  navigation  of  streams  on  whose 
watersheds  they  lie. 

SEC.  S.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  hereby  authorized  to  purchase, 
in  the  name  of  the  United  States,  such  lauds  as  have  been  approved  for  pur- 
chase by  the  National  Forest  Reservation  Commission  at  the  price  or  prices 
fixed  by  said  commission:  Provided,  That  no  deed  or  other  instrument  of  con- 
veyance shall  be  accepted  or  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  under 
this  act  until  the  legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  land  lies  shall  have  con- 
sented to  the  acquisition  of  such  land  by  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of 
preserving  the  navigability  of  navigable  streams. 

SEC.  9.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may  do  all  things  necessary  to 
secure  the  safe  title  in  the  United  States  to  the  lands  to  be  acquired  under  this 
act;  but  no  payment  shall  be  made  for  any  such  lands  until  the  title  shall  be 
satisfactory  to  the  Attorney-General  and  shall  be  vested  in  the  United  States. 

SEC.  10.  That  such  acquisition  may  in  any  case  be  conditioned  upon  the  ex- 
ception and  reservation  to  the  owner,  from  whom  title  passes  to  the  United 
States,  of  the  minerals  and  of  the  merchantable  timber,  or  either  or  any  part 
of  them,  within  or  upon  such  lands  at  the  date  of  the  conveyance;  but  in  every 
case  such  exception  and  reservation,  and  the  time  within  which  such  timber 
shall  be  removed,  and  the  rules  and  regulations  under  which  the  cutting  and 
removal  of  such  timber  and  the  mining  and  removal  of  such  minerals  shall  be 
done  shall  be  expressed  in  the  written  instrument  of  conveyance,  and  thereafter 
the  mining,  cutting,  and  removal  of  the  minerals  and  timber  so  excepted  and 
reserved  shall  be  done  only  under  and  in  obedience  to  the  rules  and  regulations 
so  expressed. 

SEC.  11.  That  whereas  small  areas  of  land  chiefly  valuable  for  agriculture 
may  of  necessity  or  by  inadvertence  be  included  in  tracts  acquired  under  this 
act,  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may,  in  his  discretion,  and  he  is  hereby  author- 
ized, upon  application  or  otherwise,  to  examine  and  ascertain  the  location  and 
extent  of  such  areas  as  in  his  opinion  may  be  occupied  for  agricultural  purposes 
without  injury  to  the  forests  or  to  stream  flow  and  which  are  not  needed  for 
public  purposes,  and  may  list  and  describe  the  same  by  metes  and  bounds,  or 
otherwise,  and  offer  them  for  sale  as  homesteads  at  their  true  value,  to  be  fixed 
by  him,  to  actual  settlers,  in  tracts  not  exceeding  eighty  acres  in  area,  under 
such  joint  rules  and  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  and  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  may  prescribe ;  and  in  case  of  such  sale  the  jurisdiction 
over  the  land  sold  shall,  ipso  facto,  revert  to  the  State  in  which  the  lands  sold 
lie.  And  no  right,  title,  interest,  or  claim  in  or  to  any  lands  acquired  under 
this  act,  or  the  waters  thereon,  or  the  products,  resources,  or  use  thereof  after 
such  lauds  shall  have  been  so  acquired,  shall  be  initiated  or  perfected,  except 
as  in  this  section  provided. 

SEC.  12.  That,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  last  preceding  section,  the  lands 
acquired  under  this  act  shall  be  permanently  reserved,  held,  and  administered 
as  national  forest  lands  under  the  provisions  of  section  twenty-four  of  the  act 
approved  March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety -one  (volume  twenty-six, 
Statutes  at  Large,  page  eleven  hundred  and  three),  and  acts  supplemental  to. 
and  amendatory  thereof.  And  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may  from  time  to 
time  divide  the  lands  acquired  under  this  act  into  such  specific  national  forests 
and  so  designate  the  same  as  he  may  deem  best  for  administrative  purposes. 

SEC.  13.  That  the  jurisdiction,  both  civil  and  criminal,  over  persons  upon  the 
lands  acquired  under  this  act  shall  not  be  affected  or  changed  by  their  perma- 
nent reservation  and  administration  as  national  forest  lands,  except  so  far  as 
the  punishment  of  offenses  against  the  United  States  is  concerned,  the  intent 
and  meaning  of  this  section  being  that  the  State  wherein  such  land  is  situated 
shall  not,  by  reason  of  such  reservation  and  administration,  lose  its  jurisdiction 
nor  the  inhabitants  thereof  their  rights  and  privileges  as  citizens  or  be  absolved 
from  their  duties  as  citizens  of  the  State. 


62  FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

SEC.  14.  That  twenty-five  per  centum  of  all  moneys  received  during  any  fiscal 
year  from  each  national  forest  into  which  the  lands  acquired  under  this  act 
may  from  time  to  time  be  divided  shall  be  paid,  at  the  end  of  such  year,  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  State  in  which  such  national  forest  is  situated, 
to  be  expended  as  the  state  legislature  may  prescribe  for  the  benefit  of  the 
public  schools  and  public  roads  of  the  county  or  counties  in  which  such  national 
forest  is  situated :  Provided,  That  when  any  national  forest  is  in  more  than  one 
State  or  county  the  distributive  share  to  each  from  the  proceeds  of  such  forest 
shall  be  proportional  to  its  area  therein :  Provided  further,  That  there  shall  not 
be  paid  to  any  State  for  any  county  an  amount  equal  to  more  than  40  per  cen- 
tum of  the  total  income  of  such  county  from  all  other  sources. 

SEC.  15.  That  a  sum  sufficient  to  pay  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  commis- 
sion and  its  members,  not  to  exceed  an  annual  expenditure  of  twenty-five  thou- 
sand dollars,  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated.  Said  appropriation  shall  be  immediately  available, 
and  shall  be  paid  out  on  the  audit  and  order  of  the  president  of  the  said  com- 
mission, which  audit  and  order  shall  be  conclusive  and  binding  upon  all  depart- 
ments as  to  the  correctness  of  the  accounts  of  said  commission. 

Amend  the  title  so  as  to  read  "  An  act  to  enable  any  State  to  co- 
operate with  any  other  State  or  States,  or  with  the  United  States, 
for  the  protection  of  the  watersheds  of  navigable  streams,  and  to 
appoint  a  commission  for  the  acquisition  of  lands  for  the  purpose  of 
conserving  the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers." 

Thereupon,  by  vote  of  the  committee,  it  was  ordered  that  Mr.  Weeks 
and  Mr.  Lever  be  requested  to  report  the  bill  to  the  House. 

It  was  further  ordered  that  the  paper  upon  "  Forests  and  reser- 
voirs in  relation  to  stream  flow  with  particular  reference  to  navigable 
rivers,"  read  before  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  by 
Lieut.  Col.  H.  M.  Chittenden,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 
be  incorporated  in  these  hearings,  together  with  the  comments  of 
Dr.  George  F.  Swain  thereon,  and  a  letter  from  Colonel  Chittenden 
to  the  chairman  of  the  committee  in  reply  to  Doctor  Swain's  com- 
ments; and  also  the  majority  and  minority  reports  on  the  bill  S. 
4825. 

The  documents  referred  to  appear  as  an  appendix  to  this  volume. 


APPENDIX. 


FORESTS  AND  RESERVOIRS  IN  THEIR  RELATION  TO  STREAM  FLOW  WITH  PARTICULAR 
REFERENCE  TO  NAVIGABLE  RIVERS. 

[By  H.  M.  CMttenden,  M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.] 

The  following  paper  is  presented  at  this  time  with  the  purpose  of  eliciting 
from  the  society  membership  the  results  of  observation  and  experience  touch- 
ing the  important  matters  of  which  it  treats.  They  are  vital  features  of  one 
of  the  chief  living  questions  before  the  public  to-day,  and  an  expression  of  views 
by  men  accustomed  to  look  at  things  from  a  practical  standpoint  can  not  fail  to 
be  of  great  value  to  our  legislators  upon  whom  the  ultimate  responsibility  for 
action  must  rest. 

While  the  author's  views  traverse  to  some  extent  currently  accepted  theories, 
they  are  based  upon  long  observation  and  study  and  are  what  seem  to  be 
unavoidable  conclusions  therefrom ;  but  he  is  committed  to  no  theory  as  such 
and  his  mind  is  entirely  open  to  conviction  upon  any  point  in  which  his  opinions 
may  be  shown  to  be  erroneous.  His  sympathies  are  wholly  on  the  side  of  the 
present  movenfent  for  the  conservation  of  our  natural  resources,  and,  so  far  as 
this  paper  takes  issue  with  certain  tendencies  of  that  movement,  it  is  only  for 
the  purpose  of  inquiring  whether  such  tendencies  are  not  really  inimical  to  the 
cause  to  which  they  pertain. 

With  this  preliminary  statement,  the  author  will  take  up  the  first  part  of  his 
paper,  viz,  the  influence  of  forests  upon  stream  flow. 

FORESTS   AND    STREAM   FLOW. 

The  commonly  accepted  opinion  is  that  forests  have  a  beneficial  influence  on 
stream  flow : 

(1)  By  storing  the  waters  from  rain  and  melting  snow  in  the  bed  of  humus 
that  develops  under  forest  cover,  preventing  their  rapid  rush  to  the  streams 
and  paying  them  out  gradually  afterwards,  thus  acting  as  true  reservoirs  in 
equalizing  the  run-off. 

(2)  By  retarding  the  snow  melting  in  the  spring  and  prolonging  the  run-off 
from  that  source. 

(3)  By  increasing  precipitation. 

(4)  By  preventing  erosion  of  the  soil  on  steep  slopes  and  thereby  protecting 
water  courses,  canals,  reservoirs,  and  similar  work  from  accumulations  of  silt. 

There  are  many  subsidiary  influences,  but,  broadly  stated,  the  above  proposi- 
tions cover  the  ground.  They  were  first  given  general  currency  nearly  forty 
years  ago  through  the  writings  of  Sir  Gustav  Wex,  chief  engineer  on  the  im- 
provement of  the  Danube,  whose  treatise  was  translated  into  English  by  the 
late  General  Weitzel,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers.  Wex's  theories  were  stoutly 
resisted  at  the  time  by  many  European  engineers,  and  still  find  only  a  limited 
acceptance  in  the  profession,0  though  in  the  popular  mind  they  have  gained 
ground,  and  in  the  United  States  are  now  accepted  practically  without  question. 

To  establish  by  definite  proof  the  truth  or  falsity  of  these  propositions  is  an  ex- 
tremely difficult  task.  One  would  not  think  so,  indeed,  to  judge  from  the  cheerful 
confidence  with  which  the  popular  thought  accepts  them ;  but  it  is  nevertheless 
so.  The  elements  of  the  problem  are  so  many  and  conflicting,  the  necessary 
evidence  is  so  hard  to  get,  and  comparative  records  are  of  such  recent  date,  that 
precise  demonstration  is  scarcely  possible.  The  popular  belief  is  based  upon  a 
fact  and  an  assumption,  forming  together  a  basis  for  a  conclusion.  The  fact  is 

"Almost  simultaneously  with  the  publication  of  Wex's  treatise,  a  similar  work 
was  published  in  France  by  M.  F.  Vall£e,  taking  exactly  the  opposite  view  of  the 
question. 

63 


64  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

that  forests  in  the  eastern  portion  of  the  United  States  have  disappeared  to  a 
large  extent  within  the  past  century.  The  assumption  is  that  floods  and  low 
wafers  in  the  same  region  are  more  frequent  and  severe  than  before  the  forests 
were  cleared  away.  The  conclusion  is  that  these  assumed  conditions  must  be 
due  to  the  disappearance  of  the  forests.  Post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc  is  the  argu- 
mentative process  relied  upon,  and  little  effort  is  made  to  consider  whether 
there  may  not  be  some  other  and  more  satisfactory  explanation.  The  author 
will  attempt  to  analyze  the  problem  from  a  theoretical  standpoint,  and  will  then 
cite  existing  records  so  far  as  these  are  sufficiently  long  continued  to  be  worth 
anything.  He  will  consider,  first,  the  effect  of  the  forests  where  stream  flow 
results  from  rain  alone,  and,  next,  where  it  results  in  part  from  melting  snow. 

Effect  of  forests  upon  the  run-off  from  rainfall. — The  first  of  the  above  proposi- 
tions— the  retentive  action  of  the  forest  bed — may  be  accepted  at  once  as  strictly 
triu1  for  average  conditions.  It  is  not  true  for  extreme  conditions — great  floods 
and  excessive  low  waters — the  conditions  that  determine  the  character  and  cost 
of  river  control.  Consider  an  inclined-plane  surface,  practically  impervious  to 
water,  with  a  layer  of  sand  covering  some  small  portion  of  it,  and  let  a  uniform 
spray  of  water  be  applied  to  the  entire  surface.  Assume  that  the  temperature 
and  rate  of  evaporation  are  relatively  low.  As  soon  as  the  spray  begins  water 
commences  to  flow  from  the  uncovered  surface,  but  not  for  a  time  from  that 
covered  by  the  sand.  After  a  while  it  begins  to  trickle  from  the  sand,  increasing 
in  volume  until  the  sand  is  thoroughly  saturated,  after  which  it  flows  off  in  as 
great  quantity  per  unit  area  as  from  the  uncovered  portion.  If  the  spray  is 
stopped  the  water  immediately  ceases  to  flow  from  the  uncovered  area,  but 
continues  in  diminishing  quantity  from  the  covered  area  until  it  finally  ceases 
altogether ;  but  not  all  the  water  that  fell  on  this  area  has  run  away.  The  sand 
has  retained  some  portion  of  it  and  given  it  off  in  evaporation,  so  that  the  total 
run-off  per  unit  area  is  somewhat  less  than  on  the  uncovered  portion.  If  the 
shower  be  long-continued  and  the  rate  of  evaporation  very  low,  the  difference  of 
total  run-off  per  unit  area  from  the  two  surfaces  will  be  very  slight. 

Suppose  now  that  the  temperature  and  rate  of  evaporation  are  high  and  that 
the  spray  works  intermittently.  If  the  showers  are  small  in  volume  and  the 
intervals  between  them  long,  the  sand  may  retain  nearly  or  quite  all  of  the 
individual  showers  and  give  them  off  in  evaporation,  so  that  there  \\ill  be  no 
run-off  whatever. 

Between  these  two  extreme  conditions  the  covered  area  will  exert  a  greater 
or  smaller  regulative  effect  upon  the  run-off.  The  retentive  power  of  the  sand 
will  be  less  as  the  slope  of  the  surface  upon  which  it  rests  increases,  or  it  will 
be  greatest  when  the  surface  is  nearly  horizontal  and  least  when  it  is  nearly 
vertical.0 


0  Since  the  above  was  written  the  author  has  noticed,  in  the  report  of  the 
hearing  on  House  resolution  208  before  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  that 
Gifford  Pinchot,  Associate  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  Chief  of  the 
Forest  Service,  used  an  illustration  very  similar  to  that  given  above,  except 
that  he  failed  to  carry  it  to  its  logical  conclusion.  Addressing  the  committee 
February  27,  1908,  he  said :  "  I  have  in  my  hand  here  a  photograph  of  a  denuded 
hillside.  After  the  forest  has  been  removed  rain  falls  on  that  hillside  and  runs 
off  rapidly,  as  the  water  I  drop  upon  the  photograph  does  now,  and  disappears 
instantly.  [Illustrating.)  If,  on  the  other  hand,  I  place  a  forest  cover  on  the 
hillside  that  is  exactly  analogous  in  texture  and  effect  with  this  piece  of  blot- 
ting paper  and  drop  the  water  slowly  upon  it,  we  would  find  that,  instead  of 
running  off  slowly  at  the  bottom,  the  water  is  held.  [Illustrating  with  blotting 
paper.]  Part  of  it  runs  off,  but  as  soon  as  the.  absorbent  quality  of  the  paper  or 
the  forest  floor  has  time  to  take  effect  the  water  is  kept  and  drips  gradually  for 
a  considerable  length  of  time  off  the  hill  into  the  stream.  This  is  an  exact  illus- 
tration of  the  way  in  which  the  forest  controls  the  stream  flow  on  that  hill- 
side." 

Mr.  Pinchot  should  have  completed  his  illustration.  He  should  have  contin- 
ued to  sprinkle  the  paper  long  enough  and  heavily  enough  to  have  saturated  the 
paper  completely,  in  order  to  show  that  the  water  would  then  flow  from  the 
paper  as  rapidly  as  from  the  uncovered  area;  and  he  should  then  have  ex- 
plained that  this  condition  represents  what  always  happens  in  the  forest  in 
times  of  great  flood.  Then  he  should  have  sprinkled  the  paper  intermittently  in 
small  quantities,  and  at  such  long  intervals  that  the  warm  air  of  the  room 
would  evaporate  all  of  the  absorbed  water,  and  that  none  whatever  would  flow 
away.  He  should  then  have  explained  that  this  condition  represents  what 
always  takes  place  in  the  forest  in  tirues  of  great  drought. 


FOREST    LANDS   FOR    THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  65 

Now,  in  nature  this  ideal  illustration  is  never  fully  exemplified  in  the  cleared 
land  and  the  forest.  There  is  nearly  everywhere  a  marked  retentive  capacity  in 
the  bare  soil.  In  newly  plowed  ground  it  is  probably  greater  than  in  the  forest. 
Moreover,  certain  crops,  like  heavy  grass  or  grain,  obstruct  the  flow  of  water 
almost  as  much  as  the  forest  cover.  On  the  other  hand,  the  furrows  of  culti- 
vated fields,  drainage  ditches,  roads,  and  particularly  the  pavements  and  roofs 
of  towns,  greatly  accelerate  the  run-off;  so  that,  while  the  full  contrast  of  the 
ideal  example  does  not  exist  in  nature,  the  principle  of  the  illustration  applies 
perfectly.  That  is,  there  are  times  when  the  percentage  of  retention  in  the 
forest  bed  is  0,  and  there  are  other  times  when  it  is  100;  or,  there  are  times 
when  so  much  water  comes  that  the  forest  bed  can  hold  none  of  it,  and  there 
are  times  when  so  little  comes  that  it  holds  it  all.  Between  these  extremes 
there  are  periods  when  it  holds  more  or  less  and  gives  up  less  or  more  and  exer- 
cises a  corresponding  influence  upon  the  run-off.  There  is  another  important 
condition  not  exemplified  in  the  illustration,  and  that  is  that  the  forest  areas 
are  scattered  everywhere,  the  ground  has  an  infinite  variety  of  slope,  the  show- 
ers never  fall  uniformly  over  an  entire  watershed,  and  the  final  result  in  the 
total  run-off  is  the  summation  of  thousands  of  tributary  results. 

It  is  true,  therefore,  as  popularly  understood,  that  in  periods  of  ordinary 
rainfall,  with  sufficient  intervals  for  the  forest  bed  to  dry  out  somewhat,  forests 
do  exert  a  regulative  effect  upon  run-off.  They  modify  freshets  and  torrents 
and  prolong  the  run-off  after  storms  have  passed,  and  thus  realize  in  greater  or 
less  perfection  the  commonly  accepted  theory. 

This  result  utterly  fails,  however,  in  those  periods  of  long-continued,  wide- 
spread, and  heavy  precipitation,  which  alone  cause  great  floods  in  the  large 
rivers.  At  such  times  the  forest  bed  becomes  completely  saturated,  its  storage 
capacity  exhausted,  and  it  has  no  more  power  to  restrain  floods  than  the  open 
country  itself.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  the  forest  bed  has  retained  a  portion  of 
earlier  rainfall  and  is  yielding  it  up  later  to  the  streams,  produces  a  condition 
that  may  be  worse  than  it  would  be  in  a  country  cleared  of  forests.  Really 
great  floods  in  large  rivers  are  always,  as  is  well  known,  the  result  of  combina- 
tions from  the  various  tributaries.  It  is  when  the  floods  from  these  tributaries 
arrive  simultaneously  at  a  common  point  that  calamitous  results  follow.  Any 
cause  which  facilitates  such  combinations  is,  therefore,  a  source  of  danger. 
Now,  unquestionably,  in  a  heavily  wooded  watershed  forests  do  have  a  tendency 
in  this  direction.  When  a  period  of  heavy  storms  occurs,  spreading  over  a  great 
area,  continually  increasing  in  intensity,  the  forests,  by  retaining  some  portion 
of  the  earlier  showers  and  paying  them  out  afterwards,  do  produce  a  general 
high  condition  of  the  river  which  may  greatly  aggravate  a  sudden  flood  arising 
later  from  some  portion  of  the  watershed.  That  the  forest  does  promote  tribu- 
tary combinations  there  would  seem  to  be  no  question,  and  that  it  may  therefore 
aggravate  flood  conditions  necessarily  follows.  It  is  not  contended  that  this 
increase  is  ever  very  great,  but  it  is  contended  that  forests  never  diminish  great 
floods  and  that  they  probably  do  increase  them  somewhat.  The  forests  are 
virtually  automatic  reservoirs,  not  subject  to  intelligent  control,  and  act  just  as 
the  system  of  reservoirs  once  proposed  by  the  French  Government  for  the  con- 
trol of  floods  in  the  River  Rhone  would  have  acted,  if  built.  These  reservoirs 
were  to  have  open  outlets,  not  capable  of  being  closed,  which  were  intended  to 
restrain  only  a  portion  of  the  flow.  A  careful  study  of  their  operation  in  cer- 
tain recorded  floods  showed  that  they  would  actwally  have  produced  combina- 
tions more  dangerous  than  would  have  occurred  without  them. 

Consider  now  periods  of  extreme  drought  and  grant  that  as  a  general  rule, 
springs  and  little  streams  dry  up  more  completely  than  when  forests  covered 
the  country,  although  this  difference  is  very  greatly  exaggerated  in  the  pop- 
ular mind.0  At  first  thought  one  would  conclude  that,  since  the  springs  and 
streams  make  up  the  rivers,  these  also  ought  now  to  show  a  smaller  low-water 
flow  than  formerly.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case.  The  difference  between 

a  The  term  "as  a  general  rule,"  is  used,  for  it  is  by  no  means  absolute.  In 
particular  the  drainage  of  low  swamp  lands  leads  off  into  the  streams,  in  dry 
weather,  waters  that  formerly  remained  or  passed  off  in  evaporation,  and  in 
such  cases  even  the  low-water  How  is  greater  than  it  used  to  be.  In  lSl)f>  the 
author  saw  an  example  of  this  on  the  Scioto  River  near  the  outlet  of  the  great 
Scioto  swamp,  which  had  recently  been  drained.  A  small  mill  was  able  to 
operate  during  the  low-water  season  more  regularly  than  formerly.  Tile  drain- 
age, now  so  widely  used,  has  the  same  tendency. 

7253S— AGE— 09 5 


66  FOREST   LANDS   FOR  THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

the  former  low-water  flow  of  a  spring  or  rivulet  and  what  it  is  now  is  rela- 
tively an  insignificant  quantity.  Most  of  such  water  sources  yield  but  a  small 
fraction  of  a  cubic  foot  per  second.  Whether  these  small  quantities  are  a  trifle 
more  or  less  cuts  very  little  figure  in  the  aggregate;  and  so  it  counts  but  little 
In  the  flow  of  a  great  river  whether  some  of  its  extreme  sources  lose  a  portion 
of  a  volume  that  is  already  inappreciable.  When  the  summer  showers  come, 
however,  there  is  a  marked  difference.  At  such  times  the  forests  not  only  hold 
the  water  back — they  often  swallow  it  completely.  Small  showers  that  make 
a  perceptible  run-off  in  the  open  are  often  practically  all  absorbed  in  the  leaves 
of  the  trees.  Heavier  showers,  that  make  freshets  in  the  open,  are  largely 
absorbed  in  the  leaves  and  forest  bed  and  pass  off  in  evaporation ;  so  that, 
contrary  to  the  general  view,  the  evaporation  from  the  forest  is  greater  at 
such  times  than  in  the  open  country  and  the  run-off  from  summer  precipitation 
is  less.  A  single  shower  may  produce  a  sufficiently  greater  run-off  in  a  de- 
forested area  to  more  than  offset  the  diminished  low-water  flow  for  several 
weeks.0  Now,  on  most  of  the  smaller  streams  quantity  of  flow  is  a  more  impor- 
tant matter  than  natural  uniformity  of  flow,  particularly  in  the  summer  time.  The 
day  of  the  small  mill,  which  was  so  dependent  upon  such  uniformity,  is  past. 
The  modern  water  power  invariably  seeks  uniformity  by  artificial  regulation, 
and  the  ups  and  downs  of  its  sources  of  supply  are  abolished  in  its  storage. 
Therefore  it  does  not  matter  nearly  as  much  that  the  run-off  of  the  small 
streams  be  uniform  as  that  it  yield  a  good  flow  of  water ;  and  if  forests  dimin- 
ish the  total  low-water  supply,  this  fact  more  than  offsets  the  gain  in  uniform- 
ity. Likewise  the  great  rivers  swallow  up  and  equalize  the  small  irregularities 
of  their  headwaters  and  actually  experience  a  somewhat  larger  low-water  flow 
than  if  their  watersheds  were  still  thickly  forested.  Thus,  while  forests  may 
decrease  somewhat  the  extreme  range  between  maximum  and  minimum  run-off 
on  very  small  watersheds,  they  do  not  do  so  on  great  ones,  which  are  combi- 
nations of  very  small  ones.  At  the  same  time  it  seems  certain  that  forests 
decrease  somewhat  the  total  run-off  from  watersheds,  small  or  great.6 

Influence  of  forests  upon  snow  melting. — The  second  proposition — that  for- 
ests have  a  beneficial  effect  upon  the  run-off  from  snow  melting — is  quite  as 
firmly  fixed  in  the  popular  belief  as  that  just  considered,  but  has  even  less 
foundation  in  fact.  It  is  a  relation  that  can  be  definitely  traced,  and  it  can 
be  demonstrated  that  the  effect  of  forests  upon  the  run-off  from  snow  is  invari- 
ably to  increase  its  intensity.  This  results  from  two  causes,  one  affecting  the 
falling  of  the  snow  and  the  other  its  melting. 

In  the  first  place,  forests  break  the  wind,  prevent  the  formation  of  drifts, 
and  distribute  the  snow  in  an  even  blanket  over  the  ground.  In  the  open  coun- 
try, the  snow  is  largely  heaped  into  drifts,  their  size  depending  upon  the  con- 
figuration of  the  ground,  the  presence  of  wind-breaks,  and  the  prevalence  and 
force  of  the  wind.  These  drifts  form  admirable  reservoirs  and  in  the  high 
mountains  are  the  most  perfect  known.  Forests  prevent  their  formation 
entirely. 

The  period  of  snow  melting  begins  in  the  open  country  much  earlier  than  in 
the  forests.  At  first  the  melting  is  due  mainly  to  the  direct  action  of  the  sun's 
rays  before  there  is  sufficient  warmth  in  the  general  atmosphere  to  produce  any 
effect.  The  thinly  covered  areas  melt  off  first  and  the  streams  experience  a 
diurnal  rise  and  fall  following  the  warmth  of  day  and  the  frost  of  night. 
Nothing  like  a  flood  ever  arises  from  such  melting. 

Under  forest  cover  this  action  is  interfered  with  more  or  less,  depending  upon 
the  density  of  the  shade.  Even  after  the  ground  in  the  open  is  entirely  bare, 
except  under  the  drifts,  the  forest  areas  may  still  be  covered  with  an  unbroken 
layer  of  snow.  It  is  generally,  though  erroneously,  considered  that  this  delay 
Is  beneficial,  by  carrying  farther  into  the  summer  the  release  of  the  winter  pre- 

0  So  far  as  the  author  is  aware,  Col.  T.  P.  Roberts,  of  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  was 
the  first  to  call  attention  to  this  characteristic  of  stream  flow. 

6  This  subject  was  ably  discussed  by  Mr.  llaphael  Zon,  of  the  Forest  Service, 
Department  of  Agriculture,  in  Transactions,  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.f  Vol.  LIX,  pp. 
494-495.  He  states,  among  other  things,  that  "  the  quantity  of  water  available 
for  stream  flow  from  forested  watersheds,  all  other  conditions  being  equal, 
Is  less  than  from  nonforested  watersheds;"  that  "the  forest  soil  receives 
least  precipitation,  next  conies  meadow  land,  and  lastly  tilled  land:" 
that  "  in  the  forest,  only  the  upper  layer  of  the  soil  is  moister  than  in  the  open, 
the  lower  layers  being  always  drier."  This  discussion  is  well  worth  perusal. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  67 

cipitation  and  giving  it  more  time  to  soak  into  the  ground;  but  in  fact  this 
benefit  does  not  result.  The  water  from  the  first  melting  of  the  snow  blanket 
does  not  sink  into  the  ground  but  into  itself.  Snow  is  like  a  sponge.  A  panful 
will  shrink  to  one-fourth  of  its  volume,  or  less,  before  any  free  water  appears. 
The  author  has  seen  an  8-foot  covering  of  snow  dwindle  to  2  feet,  with  the 
ground  beneath  is  still  comparatively  dry. 

The  forest  shade  thus  holds  the  snow,  which  gradually  becomes  saturated 
from  its  own  melting,  until  the  heat  and  warm  rains  of  late  spring  or  early 
summer  arrive,  the  soft  air  everywhere  pervading  the  forest  depths  and  finding 
a  maximum  exposure  of  surface  to  the  melting  influences.  A  cubic  yard  of 
snow,  which  in  a  great  drift  might  stand  27  feet  deep  with  a  square  foot  of 
exposure,  may  here  lie  with  a  depth  of  1  foot  and  27  square  feet  of  exposure. 
The  result  is  that  when  the  final  melting  begins  the  whole  body  of  snow  dis- 
appears very  rapidly,  rushing  from  every  direction  into  the  streams,  swelling 
them  to  their  limits  and  often  causing  disastrous  freshets.  The  active  melting 
lasts  but  a  short  time,  and  there  is  little  opportunity  for  the  water  to  soak  into 
the  ground.  The  delay  in  melting,  caused  by  the  forest  shade,  has  simply 
operated  to  concentrate  it  into  a  shorter  period  and  increase  the  intensity  of  the 
resulting  freshet.  It  comes  so  fast  that  the  greater  portion  of  it  can  not  be 
utilized  at  the  time  and  is  lost  altogether  unless  intercepted  by  reservoirs. 

In  the  open  country,  on  the  other  hand,  the  drifts  last  for  weeks  after  the 
snow  has  entirely  disappeared  from  the  forest,  and  continue  to  yield  a  supply 
of  water  far  into  the  summer.  The  period  of  active  melting  in  the  open  may 
have  lasted  four  mouths,  that  in  the  forest  scarcely  as  many  weeks.  In  the 
northwest  corner  of  Wyoming  and  contiguous  portions  of  the  adjoining  States 
lies  an  elevated  region  of  probably  20,000  square  miles,  which  is  the  source  of 
nearly  all  the  great  river  systems  of  the  West.  It  is  a  very  remarkable  region 
in  this  respect.  Its  average  altitude  is  about  7,500  feet,  and  it  is  in  large  part 
covered  with  a  dense  evergreen  forest.  At  the  very  summit  of  this  elevated 
region  is  that  singular  section  now  visited  annually  by  thousands  of  tourists — 
the  Yellowstone  Park.  The  opening  of  the  tourist  season  in  spring  occurs  just 
about  the  time  of  active  snow  melting,  and  the  most  onerous  and  difficult  task 
of  those  in  charge  of  the  road  system  of  the  park  is  to  get  the  roads  into  con- 
dition for  the  first  travel.  This  frequently  has  to  be  done  while  the  snow  still 
lies  deep  on  the  ground.  It  was  the  repeated  execution  of  this  task  that  first 
drew  the  author's  attention  to  the  fact  that,  as  a  general  rule,  the  floods  of  this 
region  are  forest  floods,  and  that  the  same  conditions  of  precipitation  which 
force  the  forest  streams  out  of  their  banks  produce  only  moderate  effects  in 
the  open.  The  traditional  "June  rise  "  comes  mainly  from  the  mountain  forests. 

A  photograph,  taken  about  the  middle  of  June  in  a  year  of  heavy  snowfall 
and  only  two  days  before  the  tourist  season  opened,  shows  an  east  and  west 
road  through  a  dense  forest  of  lodgepole  pine  at  an  altitude  of  8,200  feet.  It 
shows  very  effectively  the  deep,  even  blanket  of  snow  everywhere  covering  the 
ground,  except  along  a  narrow  strip  at  the  roots  of  the  trees  on  the  north  side 
of  the  road,  where  the  sun  had  access  through  the  opening  in  the  tree  tops 
caused  by  the  30-foot  clearing  for  the  roadway.  Another,  taken  practically  at 
the  same  time,  shows  one  of  the  great  drifts  in  the  open  country,  which  it  was 
impossible  to  avoid  in  locating  the  road. 

At  this  time  a  period  of  very  warm  weather  had  set  in,  with  frequent  rains. 
Severe  floods  followed,  which  did  great  injury  to  the  roads  and  bridges,  not 
only  in  the  mountains,  but  for  a  considerable  distance  below.  Within  two 
weeks  the  snow  had  practically  disappeared  in  the  forests,  but  in  the  open 
country  the  drifts,  like  that  in  the  photograph,  continued  until  the  middle  of 
July,  giving  forth  a  continuous  supply  of  water. 

A  most  illuminating  article,  and  one  which  everyone  interested  in  the  subject 
should  read,  was  published  in  Science  for  April  10,  1896.  It  gives  the  results 
of  observations  in  the  mountains  of  Nevada  for  over  twenty-five  years,  during 
which  "  extensive  tracts  of  timber  "  were  cut  off  "  to  the  very  ground  "  and  new 
growths  had  been  well  started.  It  was  found  that  springs  which  were  active 
after  the  land  was  cleared  dried  up  when  the  new  forest  growth  developed; 
"  that  the  water  supply  from  the  mountains  is  greater  and  more  permanent 
now  than  it  was  before  the  timber  was  cut  off;  "  that  freshets  were  no  more 
"  frequent  or  violent  than  before  the  trees  were  cut  off,"  and  that  "  spring 
floods  were  less  frequent."  The  greatly  increased  loss  due  to  evaporation  in 
the  forest  was  pointed  out.  This  results  partly  from  the  vast  extent  of  surface 
on  the  ground  exposed  to  the  air  and  partly  from  exposure  on  the  leaves  and 
branches  of  the  trees. 


68  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

"  The  foliage  on  this  class  of  trees  being  as  heavy  in  winter  as  in  summer, 
the  branches  catch  an  immense  amount  of  the  falling  snow  and  hold  it  up  in 
mid-air  for  both  sun  and  air  to  work  upon;  and  only  those  who  have  had 
experience  of  the  absorbing  power  of  the  dry  mountain  air  can  form  any  idea 
of  the  loss  from  that  source."  Moreover  "the  trees  absorb  from  the  soil  quite 
as  much  water  as  would  be  evaporated  by  the  action  of  the  sun  in  the  absence 
of  the  shade." 

The  writer  states  that  "  the  strongest  force  at  work  to  save  our  rivers  is  the 
drifting  winds  which  heap  up  the  snow  in  great  banks;  and  in  this  the  trees 
are  a  constant  obstacle."  He  declares  that  "close  observers,  after  long  yoars 
of  study,  have  been  led  to  believe  that  if  there  is  any  difference  in  the  flow  of 
streams  and  the  size  of  springs  before  and  after  the  trees  are  cut  from  above 
them,  the  balance  is  in  the  favor  of  the  open  country."  a 

In  the  current  literature  upon  this  subject  one  invariably  encounters  the 
same  fallacious  assumption,  that  because  the  forests  delay  melting  their  action 
is  therefore  beneficial.  The  fact  is  entirely  overlooked  that  delay  means  con- 
centration and  greater  intensity  of  run-off,  while  the  open  country  prolongs  the 
melting  and  gives  a  more  even  distribution.  If  the  true  action  of  forests  in 
this  respect,  however,  is  rarely  recognized  by  public  writers,  it  is  recognized, 
though  perhaps  unconsciously,  by  those  who  are  benefited  by  it.  The  monthly 
reports  of  the  Weather  Bureau  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  region  are  instructive 
reading  in  this  connection.  The  following  are  a  few  extracts  from  those  sent 
in  to  the  central  office  of  the  western  Montana  district  at.  Helena  : 

"Where  there  is  no  timber  to  break  the  force  of  the  winds  solid  drifts  of 
considerable  depth  have  collected."  *  "  *  "The  snowfall  has  been  very 
light  and  the  drifts  are  not  large  or  solid  enough  to  furnish  an  adequate  flow 
of  water  in  the  streams."  *  *  *  "  In  some  sections  the  winter's  snowfall 
has  been  the  lightest  for  many  years,  and  as  there  is  little  likelihood  that  the 
later  snows  will  form  solid  drifts,  it  is  practically  certain  that  the  flow  of 
water  in  most  streams  will  be  inadequate  for  irrigation  and  mining  purposes." 

These  extracts,  which  could  be  multiplied  indefinitely,  show  how  well  the 
practical  ranchman  understands  the  value  of  snowdrifts.  It  has  always  been 
a  mystery  to  the  author  that  writers  will  persist  in  statements  like  the' follow- 
ing, which  appears  in  one  of  the  ablest  addresses  at  the  recent  conservation 
conference  in  Washington: 

"The  possibility  of  irrigation  depends  largely  on  the  preservation  of  the 
forest  cover  of  the  mountains,  which  catches  and  holds  the  melting  snows,  and 
thus  forms  the  great  storage  reservoirs  of  nature." 

The  forests  destroy  the  reservoirs  and  the  flow  would  be  more  uniform,  pro- 
longed, and  plentiful  if  they  were  not  there. 

It  will  doubtless  be  urged  that  while  the  foregoing  conclusions  may  hold  for 
an  elevated  and  densely  wooded  region,  they  will  not  hold  for  a  lower  altitude, 
warmer  climate,  and  different  kind  of  forest.  In  reply  it  may  be  said  that  in 
proportion  as  the  conditions  described  prevail,  they  apply  everywhere.  In 
deciduous  forests  where  the  foliage  is  absent  during  seasons  of  snowfall  and 
melting,  the  winds  have  greater  play  in  winter  and  the  sunlight  in  spring,  and 
there  is,  of  course,  less  difference  between  the  forests  and  the  open  country:  but 
while  the  difference  is  less  it  is  not  obliterated  altogether,  and  in  hilly  regions, 
like  the  Adirondacks  and  the  White  Mountains,  it  exists  in  full  force.'  The 
author  Is  very  familiar  with  the  region  of  western  New  York — having  been 
reared  on  a  farm  nearly  on  the  divide  between  the  waters  of  the  Ohio  and  Lake 
Erie — a  beautifully  wooded  country,  deciduous  growths  prevailing,  and  one  of 
the  snowiest  regions  in  the  United  States.  While  there  is  less  drifting  in  the 
open,  and  more  in  the  woods  than  in  high  mountains,  still  it  !s  strictly  true 
that  the  open-country  drifts  outlast  the  forest  snows  just  as  the  latter  outlast 
the  thin  snows  in  the  open. 

°The  author  recalls  only  a  single  other  writer  who  has  set  forth  this  matter 
In  accordance  with  the  facts,  and  that  was  an  anonymous  correspondent  in  a 
recent  issue  of  the  Pacific  Sportsman.  His  view  of  the  case  is  summarized  in 
rather  terse  language  as  follows:  "Trees  in  the  mountains  make  floods  in  the 
spring."  "Snow  in  the  timber  melts  too  fast.  The  timber  keeps  it  from  drift- 
Ing."  "The  agency  which  maintains  the  river  Is  the  snow  in  the  huge  drifts." 
"That  (the  drift)  is  your  reservoir  that  feeds  the  living  streams  of  summer 
time."  "  The  timber  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  water  supply,  but  Is  a  result 
of  the  water  supply." 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOB   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  69 

A  striking  example  of  the  action  of  forests  on  snow  melting  may  be  seen  in 
the  mountains  of  the  Pacific  coast.  Here  are  the  densest  forests  in  the  world, 
the  deepest  beds  of  humus,  and  the  most  perfect  reservoir  effect  so  long  as  it 
is  in  action.  Yet  in  this  very  region,  particularly  around  Puget  Sound,  are  to 
be  found  some  of  the  most  torrential  streams  in  the  country.  This  fact  is 
largely  due  to  the  distribution  of  snowfall  caused  by  the  forests.  Conditions 
like  the  following  are  constantly  developing.  Heavy  snowstorms  sweep  over 
the  forest-covered  mountains.  The  snow  can  not  drift,  for  the  dense  woods 
break  the  wind.  A  great  deal  of  it  does  not  reach  the  ground  at  all,  but  hangs 
on  the  branches  and  undergrowth  all  the  way  from  the  highest  tree  tops  down. 
This  covering  is  often  so  dense  as  to  prevent  cruising  operations  altogether, 
because  the  cruisers  can  not  see  the  timber  through  the  impenetrable  screen  of 
snow.  Of  an  18-inch  fall,  perhaps  12  inches  is  on  the  trees  and  the  rest  spread 
evenly  on  the  ground.  To  show  what  now  happens,  let  an  illustration  be  drawn 
from  the  opposite  process  of  drying  clothes.  When  the  housewife  has  finished 
her  washing  and  wishes  to  dry  the  clothes,  she  does  not  set  them  out  in  a 
basket,  where  it  would  take  weeks  for  them  to  dry,  but  spreads  them  upon  the 
ground  or  hangs  them  on  a  line  so  that  the  sun  and  air  can  reach  them  on  all 
sides.  So  these  forests  increase,  by  a  thousandfold,  the  exposed  area  of  the 
snow  over  what  it  would  be  if  heaped  in  nature's  clothes  baskets  (the  great 
drifts),  and  give  it  the  maximum  possible  exposure  to  the  melting  influences 
whenever  these  shall  arrive.  As  a  general  rule  these  snowstorms  are  followed 
by  warm  southerly  winds  and  rains — the  rains  frequently  heavy  in  themselves — 
and  rain  and  snow  join  hands,  two  storms  in  one,  and  rush  down  to  the  ocean 
in  tremendous  freshets  and  Hoods.  The  Skagit  Iliver,  the  largest  in  Washington 
except  the  Columbia,  and  a  very  considerable  stream,  has  been  known  to  rise 
1  foot  per  hour  for  sixteen  hours,  and  this  where  the  stream  has  a  fall  of  4  feet 
to  the  mile,  and  carries  off  its  floods  very  rapidly.  A  photograph  taken  on 
another  stream  with  only  480  square  miles  of  watershed  above  it,  shows  the 
terrific  power  of  these  streams  that  come  down  from  the  most  densely  wooded 
and  perfectly  protected  watershed  in  existence.  The  great  flood  of  1906  in  this 
section  was  a  perfect  demonstration,  not  only  of  the  vast  intensifying  effect  of 
forests  upon  floods  due  to  snow  melting,  but  of  the  utter  helplessness  of  the 
forest  bed,  when  saturated  with  long  rains,  to  restrain  floods. 

The  same  effect  was  very  manifest  in  the  great  flood  of  1907  in  the  valley  of  the 
Sacrameuto  River,  California.  The  tributaries  on  the  east  side  come  down  from 
the  densely  wooded  slopes  of  the  Sierras;  those  on  the  west  side  from  the  bare 
or  sparsely  wooded  slopes  of  the  Coast  Range.  If  the  forest  theory  be  true, 
these  smooth  western  slopes  should  send  down  a  greater  flow  for  the  same  pre- 
cipitation than  the  eastern  slope.  Exactly  the  reverse  seems  to  have  been  the 
case.  For  the  period,  March  17-26,  the  precipitation  on  the  Puta  Creek  water- 
shed, on  the  west  side  (805  square  miles),  averaged  22.7  inches.  The  maximum 
resulting  run-off  per  second  per  square  mile  for  one  day  was  39.1  cubic  feet. 
Directly  across  the  valley  on  the  Sierra  slope  the  precipitation,  on  the  American 
River  watershed  (2,000  square  miles),  averaged  14.6  inches  for  the  same  period, 
and  the  maximum  daily  discharge  was  48.7  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square 
mile.  Considering  the  fact  that  unit  run-off  for  the  same  conditions  is  always 
less  the  greater  the  watershed,  this  result  is  quite  remarkable.  It  is  undoubt- 
edly due  to  the  action  of  the  Sierra  forests  on  snow  melting,  and  again  illus- 
trates the  inability  of  forests  to  exercise  any  restraining  influence  upon  great 
floods.0 

During  the  spring  of  1908  occurred  a  record-breaking  flood  in  western  Mon- 
tana, nearly  all  the  streams  on  both  sides  of  the  Continental  Divide  going  far 
over  their  banks.  As  might  have  been  predicted,  this  occurrence  was  promptly 
cited  as  another  example  of  the  effect  that  a  forest-barren  country  has  upon 
floods.  Nevertheless  it  is  as  certain  as  anything  of  this  kind  can  be,  that  if  the 
country  affected  by  this  extraordinary  downpour  (in  some  places  breaking  all 
previous  records)  had  been  thickly  forested,  and  the  ground  still  covered,  as  it 
would  have  been,  with  a  solid  layer  of  saturated  snow,  the  flood  would  have 


a  In  the  paper,  The  Flood  of  March,  1907,  in  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin 
River  Basins,  California,  by  Messrs.  Clapp,  Murphy,  and  Martin,  published  inx 
Proceedings  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  for  February,  1908,  the  author' 
say  :  "  In  the  Sierras  the  greater  part  of  the  precipitation  is  normally  in  the  form 
of  snow,  and  the  magnitude  of  floods  depends  largely  on  the  rate  of  melting.  A 
heavy  warm  rain  on  deep,  freshly  fallen  snow  produces  a  maximum  run-off." 


70  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

far  exceeded  in  magnitude  and  destructiveness  that  which  actually  took  place. 
Wherever  forests  existed  in  the  higher  altitudes  they  did  have  this  effect.0 

Having  now  considered  the  influence  of  forests  upon  stream  flow  from  a 
theoretical  standpoint,  let  the  records  themselves  be  examined  as  far  as  they 
are  available.  These  records  in  the  United  States,  unfortunately,  are  not  so 
useful  as  might  be  wished,  because  of  their  brevity.  No  continuous  records  on 
any  of  our  streams  run  back  for  more  than  eighty  years,  and  most  of  them  less 
than  half  as  far.  This  is  far  short  of  the  two  hundred  years  considered  by 
certain  European  engineers  who  investigated  Wex's  theories  as  the  minimum 
period  "  necessary  in  order  to  draw  a  reliable  conclusion  "  upon  this  subject.  It 
does  indeed  seem  absurd  to  take  present-day  records,  as  is  constantly  done,  and 
draw  conclusions  one  way  or  the  other  as  to  comparisons  with  the  past,  of 
which  records  are  entirely  wanting ;  but  such  as  they  are,  a  few  of  these  records 
are  given  in  Table  J.  They  include  in  most  cases  both  high  and  low  water, 
although  the  low-water  records  can  not,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  of  very 
much  value.  Works  of  channel  improvement  on  most  of  the  streams  have  prob- 
ably affected  somewhat  the  low-water  stages  for  the  same  dischai-ge,  while,  as 
is  well  known,  a  given  stage,  even  in  a  natural  stream,  does  not  mean  the  same 
discharge  at  different  times.6  It  is  really  the  discharge  of  the  streams  rather 
than  the  stage  that  forms  the  correct  basis  for  comparison :  but  data  for  dis- 
charge are  almost  wholly  wanting. 

An  examination  of  these  records  shows  how  utterly  impossible  it  is  to  find 
anything  in  them  to  support  the  current  theory  of  forest  influence.  They  prove 
conclusively  that  there  has  been  no  marked  change  since  the  settlement  of  the 
country  began,  and  that  such  change  as  there  has  been  is  on  the  side  of  higher 
high  waters  and  lower  low  waters  before  the  forests  were  cut  off.  What  the 
record  would  be  if  we  could  go  back  two  hundred  years  can  not  be  said,  but  it 
may  safely  be  conjectured  that  it  would  show  both  floods  and  low  waters  that 
would  equal  or  surpass  any  modern  record.  It  is  the  experience  of  every  engi- 
neer who  has  the  opportunity  to  observe  the  action  and  study  the  history  of 
great  rivers  to  find  everywhere  evidence  of  the  occurrence  of  higher  waters  than 
any  of  which  he  has  positive  record.  The  upbuilding  of  bottom  lands,  the  sur- 
vival of  old  water  marks,  and  many  other  indications  show  that,  great  as  are 
modern  floods,  those  of  the  past  were  greater  still.  In  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  it  is  not  possible  to  find  similar  evidence  of  former  low  waters,  because 
such  evidence  is  wiped  out  by  every  succeeding  high  water;  but  whoever  will 
take  the  trouble  to  study  records  of  early  expeditions  on  our  rivers,  when  barges, 
keel  boats,  and  similar  craft  were  used,  will  conclude  that  extreme  low  water 
is  not  a  modern  development  by  any  means.  Measurements  of  the  Monongahela 
River,  at  Brownsville,  in  1838  and  1856,  low-water  years,  gave  discharges  of  75 
and  23  cubic  feet  per  second,  respectively.  It  is  quite  certain  that  the  river  has 
uot  fallen  so  low  in  late  years.  At  Pittsburg  in  1S95  (the  driest  sesisou  in 
recent  years)  it  fell  to  160  feet. 


0  In  the  Weather  Bureau  report,  Montana  section  for  June,  1908,  it  is  stated 
that  "  the  rainfall  was  phenomenally  heavy  over  most  of  this  district,  and,  com- 
bined with  the  water  from  the  rapidly  melting  snow  in  the  high  mountains, 
caused  unprecedented  floods  in  nearly  all  streams." 

6  During  the  past  twenty  years  the  low-water  stage  of  the  Mississippi  at  St. 
Paul  has  been  materially  modified  by  reservoir  action. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PEOTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 


71 


TABLE  1. — Gauge  records  of  certain  rivers  of  the  United  States — Highest  and 
lowest  stages  for  each  year. 

MISSISSIPPI. 


Year. 

St.  Paul. 

St.  Louis. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

1785 

»40  6 

1826 

?33.7 
36.4 
27.0 
27  2 

1828  

1838                                                                                              .     .     . 

1843 

1844  

41.3 

1845                                                                               

32.4 
25.0 
27.4 

1846 

1849  

1851 

36.5 
28.0 
30.0 
37.1 
27  4 

1852 

1853  

1855 

18"i6                                                                                                            1 

1858  

37.0 

""6~6 
1.3 
3.5 
0.0 
1.2 
1.2 
6.6 
1.2 
1.0 
4.7 
5.2 
2.8 
2.4 
4.6 
2.8 
2.3 
5.0 
7.0 
5.6 
3.4 
2.7 
7.6 
2.8 
4.5 
3.0 
2.0 
1.4 
0.9 
3.2 
2.5 
2.8 
3.0 
1.0 
-0.2 
0.2 
-0.5 

IS 

0.3 
-1.0 
-2.5 
-2.0 
-1.0 
0.6 
-0.1 
-0.3 
3.0 

1860 

1861 

25.5 
31.5 
18.0 
20.3 
26.8 
26.8 
28.2 
24.1 
29.2 
26.2 
21.8 
23.0 
25.5 
18.4 
30.0 
31.8 
26.5 
25.7 
21.2 
25.5 
33.6 
32.0 
34.8 
28.1 
27.1 
27.0 
20.6 
29.4 
24.6 
20.5 
23.7 
86.0 
41.6 
23.3 
23.4 
27.7 
30.9 
27.2 
25.7 
23.5 
22.5 
26.8 
38.0 
33.6 
30.2 
26.2 

1862  

1863 

1864 

1865 

1866 

2.2 
3.0 

2.0 
2.8 

1867 

1868  

16.1 

1870 

1871  

1872 

7  7 

1.9 
2.4 
3.0 
2.1 
1.9 
1.8 
0.6 
0.9 
1.7 
3.3 
2.9 
1.5 
1.8 
1.9 
1.2 
0.8 
2.4 
0.8 
0.6 
0.1 
1.0 
0.6 
0.2 
0.2 
0.9 
2.3 
2.8 
2.4 
0.7 
1.2 
1.1 
2.5 
2.6 
2.0 
4.9 
1.3 

1873  

16.4 
11.6 
18.0 
11.0 
7.7 
6.7 
10.8 
15.3 
19.7 
13.3 
12.5 
10.3 
7.4 
8.2 
9.6 
14.4 
4.6 
7.0 
6.4 
12.6 
14.7 
11.8 
4.6 
10.7 
18.0 
10.7 
11.0 
6.6 
7.5 
7.5 
13.5 
9.9 
14.8 
13.3 
13.6 

1874  

1875 

1876 

1877.   

1878 

1879  

1880  

1881 

1882  

1883  

1881 

1885  

18F6  

1887 

1888 

1889  , 

1890    . 

1891  

1892  

1893 

1894 

1895  

1896  

1897 

1898  

1899  

1900 

1901 

1902  

1903 

1904 

1905  

1906           ..            ... 

1907 

L'annee  des  grandes  eaux. 


72 


FOKEST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 


TABLE  1. — Gauge  records  of  certain  rivers  of  the  United  States — Highest  and 
lowest  stages  for  each  year — Continued. 


Year. 

Pittsburg. 

Cincinnati. 

Louisville.* 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

1810  ... 

32.0 
29  0 

1813 

1816 

33.0 
34.0 

1832  .  .  . 

64.2 

40.8 

1840 

26.9 
25.0 
26.0 
23.0 
30.9 
31.9 
31.9 
18.0 
19.6 
21.4 
26.0 
22.0 
29.7 
30.9 
30.0 
16.0 
18.6 
31.4 
15.4 
22.6 
20.6 
19.6 
18.0 
19.0 
20.6 
25.6 
22.4 
25.0 
26.0 
25.0 
24.6 
20.0 
22.0 
28.0 
21.9 

1846 

1847  

63.6 

1848 

1851 

20.3 

1.5 

1852 

1853     .. 

1865 

2.1 
0.3 
0.0 
0.5 
1.1 
2.8 
1.1 
0.3 
0.1 
1.0 
1.4 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.7 
1.3 
1-.2 
1.6 
1.6 
1.1 
0.4 
0.2 
0.7 
0.0 
0.1 
0.3 
0.6 
0.6 
0.1 
0.3 
1.0 
0.3 
2.0 
0.0 
0.2 
1.2 
1.9 
1.3 
1.5 
2.0 
1.2 
2.0 
1.7 
2.2 
2.4 
1.6 
0.8 
1.1 
0.0 
1.7 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 

1856  

1.1 

1857 

1858 

43.1 
65.5 
49.2 
49.4 
67.3 
42.7 
45.1 
66.2 
42.5 
65.7 
48.2 
48.7 
65.2 
40.5 
41.7 
44.4 
47.9 
65.3 
51.7 
63.7 
41.3 
42.7 
63.1 
60.6 
68.6 
66.3 
71.0 

4ti.O 

65.7 
56.2 
39.9 
38.2 
59.2 
57.3 
43.7 
54.9 
85.6 
48.4 
47.8 
61.2 
61.4 
57.4 
40.0 
58.7 
60.9 
63.1 
45.9 
48.2 
50.2 
65.2 

2.5 
3.3 
5.3 
5.1 
2.3 
2.5 
3.1 
5.7 
4.7 
3.0 
5.1 
6.3 
3.8 
2.7 
3.0 
3.7 
2.3 
4.2 
6.2 
3.2 
4.3 
2.5 
3.7 
1.9 
6.1 
3.6 
2.7 
2.5 
3.3 
2.7 
5.2 
5.2 
5.7 
4.4 
3.4 
3.6 
3.1 
2.3 
5.5 
3.1 
4.5 
3.4 
3.2 
4.2 
3.9 
4.5 
3.3 
6.5 
7.1 
7.0 

19.1 
33.8 

1.5 
2.0 

1859  

1860 

1861 

186'' 

18(3 

1864 

1865 

1866  

18.6 
37.6 
22.3 
24.3 

2.8 
1.8 
3.0 

2.8 

1867 

18fi8  

18T.9    . 

1870 

1871 

1872  .  . 

21.0 
18.3 
22.4 
30.3 
32.5 
29.9 
15.7 
19.6 
30  0 
22.5 
37.4 
43.8 
46.7 
22.2 
32.7 
32.5 
16.1 
13.8 
35.3 
32.4 
21.9 
28.8 
12.8 
20.7 
22.4 
35.3 
36.3 
32.8 
15.4 
33.2 
24.8 
28.7 
22.9 
22.0 
26.4 
41.2 

2.0 
2.3 
1.8 
2.7 
3.7 
2.2 
2.9 
2.2 
2.8 
1.7 
4.7 
3.2 
2.0 
2.9 
2.4 

3!  6 
3.6 
3.6 
2.8 
2.1 
2.0 
2.2 
1.8 
8.9 
2.4 
3.1 
2.2 
2.0 
2.8 
2.8 
2.8 
2.0 
3.1 
8.1 
3.4 

1873 

1874  

1875  

1876 

1877 

1878             j 

1879  

1880  

1881  

188-2  

18M  

34.4 
23.0 
22.8 
22.0 
26.0 
24.0 
24.3 
31.3 
23.0 
24.0 
23.2 
25.8 
23.0 
29.5 
28.9 
22.0 
27.7 
27.5 
32.4 
28.9 
30.0 
29.0 
18.5 
85.5 

1885  . 

1886  

1887  

1888. 

1889  

1890  

1891    . 

1892 

1»93  

1894  

1895 

1896  

1897  

1898 

1899  

1000  

1901 

1902  

1903  

1904 

1905  

1906  

1907 

o  Upper  gauge. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 


73 


TABLE  1. — Gauge  records  of  certain  rivers  of  the  United  States — Highest  and 
lowest  stages  for  each  year — Continued. 


TENNESSEE. 


Year. 

Chattanooga. 

Florence. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

1867 

58.6 

31  1 

1871 

0.0 
-0.8 
-0.5 
0.0 
0.4 
-0.6 
0.0 
-0.8 
-0.5 
0.1 
0.0 
1.2 
0.4 
0.3 
0.6 
0.5 
0.6 
0.7 
1.2 
1.7 
1.0 
0.8 
1.1 
—0.1 
0.0 
0.1 
-0.5 
0.4 
-0.1 
0.1 
0.8 
-0.4 
-0.5 
-0.5 
O.O 
1.5 

1872  

16.4 
22.9 
26.0 
29.4 
19.8 
.     19.4 
13.6 
21.5 
24.5 
17.4 
29.6 
23.3 
25.2 
17.8 
28.1 
17.5 
20.8 
19.7 
23.3 
22.2 
24.0 
21.4 
17.7 
17.5 
20.0 
3>.2 
13.8 
25.2 
19.5 
18.9 
21.7 
18.8 
17.2 
16.7 
16.7 

1873                                                                          

1874  

0.7 
2.2 
1.0 
1.2 
0.9 
0.2 
1.0 
0.0 
1.7 
0.0 
0.2 
0.7 
1.2 
1.2 
1.8 
2.1 
2.0 
1.2 
1.1 
1.6 
0.7 
0.7 
1.1 
0.4 
1.6 
0.8 
1.0 
2.1 
1.2 
0.6 
0.1 
1.2 
3.2 

1875  
1876 

54.0 
81.1 

28.7 
19.2 
38.0 
38.3 
22.4 
40.2 
38.2 
42.8 
30.4 
52.2 
27.3 
27.0 
29.6 
42.5 
38.9 
37.9 
33.4 
25.5 
32.1 
40.5 
37.9 
24.6 
40.0 
24.3 
37.4 
40.8 
31.8 
22.1 
22.4 
33.3 

1877 

1878  .  .  . 

1879  

1X80 

1881  

18H2  

1883 

18M  

1885  

1886 

1X87  

1888                   .....                                                .       . 

1889 

1S90  

1892 

1893  

1894 

1895 

1896  

1897 

1><98 

1899  

1900 

1901 

1902  

3903. 

1904 

1905  

1906 

Yea-. 

Kansas  Cit  . 

Year. 

Kansas  City. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

1844 

o"ll  0 

1891                         

23.1 
24.9 
18.1 
20.1 
16.9 
19.2 
22.8 
21.5 
23.3 
17.8 
19.4 
23.2 
35.0 
25.2 
23.0 
19.7 
24.0 
30.5 

2.5 
1.5 
3.1 
4.3 
3.3 
2.8 
2.0 
4.0 
5.2 
4.2 
3.7 
3.5 
3.5 
2.1 
2.0 
2.3 
4.1 
3.7 

1873 

19.3 
16.2 
17.8 
18.0 
22.2 
19.8 
19.2 
lfi.7 
26.3 
19.2 
23.8 
717.2 
19.1 
.15.8 
20.2 
20.4 
13.9 
17.2 

2.0 
1.5 
1.8 
2.0 
3.8 
3.5 
3.2 
?2.0 
3.0 
1.2 
?5.0 
?3.0 
3.8 
0.2 
1.8 
4.7 
3.2 
0.2 

1892 

1874  

1X93  

1S75  

1876 

1894  

1895 

1877  

1X96  

1878  

1579 

1897  

1898  

1899 

1880 

1881  

1900  

1882 

1901  

1902 

1883 

1884  

1903  

1885         

1904  

1886 

1905 

1X87 

1906 

1888  ... 

1907  

1889  

1890 

1908 

a  Approximately. 


74 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 


TABLE  1. — Gauge  records  of  certain  rivers  of  the  United  States — Highest  and 
lowest  stages  for  each  year — Continued. 


CONNECTICUT. 


Year. 

Springfield. 

Year. 

Springfield. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

Highest. 

Lowest. 

1801 

21.0 
20.4 
22.2 
22.0 
20.4 
13.0 
14.2 
15.0 
17.5 
15.0 
17.0 
16.5 
18.5 
15.8 
10.8 
11.5 
10.9 
14.6 
16.0 
13.3 
16.0 

1887  

17.0 
17.7 
11.3 
11.7 
14.3 
13.8 
18.2 
10.4 
20.2 
20.2 
15.3 
15.6 
16.2 
17.0 
19.8 
19.3 
17.4 
15.3 
17.6 
15.1 
15.5 

2.1 
2.2 
3.2 
2.8 
2.8 
3.0 
2.1 
2.6 
3.4 
3.5 
8.8 
3.8 
3.6 
3.6 
3.6 
3.1 
3.1 
3.1 
3.6 
3.0 
3.3 

1843 

1888 

1854  

1889  

1862 

1890  

1869 

1.H91 

1871  

0.10 
1.10 
0.6 
1.0 
0.8 
0.6 
1.2 
1.2 
1.6 
1.0 
1.7 
1.6 
1  8 
2.2 
2.4 
1.6 

1892  

1872  
1873 

1893  

1894 

1874 

1895 

1875  

1876 

1896  
1897  

1898 

1877 

1878  

1879 

1899  

1900  

1901 

1880 

1881  

1882 

1902  
1903  

1904 

1883 

1884  

1885 

1905  

1906 

1886 

1907 

The  point  should  be  fully  recognized  that  these  records  are  valueless  for 
establishing  either  side  of  the  forestry  argument  unless  they  clearly  indicate 
a  new  tendency  in  river  flow.  It  is  not  enough  to  cite  a  few  isolated  cases.  In  a 
period  of,  say,  two  hundred  years,  there  must  be  a  record  year  for  high  and  one 
for  low  water.  Is  there  any  reason  why  it  might  not  occur  this  year  as  well  as 
earlier?  There  must  be  clear  evidence  of  permanent  change  before  any  con- 
clusion can  be  legitimately  drawn.  In  two  instances  such  a  tendency  may 
possibly  be  claimed,  the  Ohio  at  Fittsburg  and  the  Connecticut  at  Holyoke, 
which  show,  in  the  past  few  years,  a  greater  frequency  of  high  waters  than 
for  some  years  previously.0  To  whatever  extent  this  may  be  true,  it  is  certainly 
not  due  to  deforestation.  The  change  in  the  forested  areas  on  the  water-sheds 
of  either  of  these  streams  has  been  relatively  very  slight  in  the  past  twenty 
years.  The  great  inroad  into  the  timber  of  the  upper  Ohio  took  place  many 
years  ago.  Since  that  time  many  cleared  areas  have  grown  up  to  timber  while 
new  areas  have  been  cut.  The  change  one  way  or  the  other,  in  recent  years, 
compared  with  the  total  area,  is  altogether  insignificant.  The  Connecticut 
watershed  above  Holyoke  has  a  greater  forested  area  than  it  had  forty  years 
ago.  This  is  due  to  the  abandonment  of  former  farms  which,  in  many  instances, 
have  grown  up  to  timber.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  recent  cutting  in  the  White 
Mountains  offsets  this,  and,  so  far  as  snow  melting  is  concerned,  what  cutting 
there  has  been  is  certainly  in  favor  of  uniformity  of  flow.6 


0  In  the.  period  of  thirty-four  years  from  1874,  the  Ohio  River  at  Pittsburg 
rose  above  15  feet  on  the  gauge  148  times.  In  the  first  half  of  this  period,  68 
of  these  freshets  occurred  and  80  in  the  second  half.  The  mean  for  the  first 
half  was  19.3  feet  and  20.2  feet  for  the  second  half.  The  mean  of  the  lowest 
waters  of  the  first  half  was  0.3  foot  and  1.0  feet  for  the  second  half.  In  Transac- 
tions, American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  Vol.  LVIII,  p.  31,  is  a  twenty -year 
volumetric  record  of  the  Connecticut,  which  indicates  somewhat  higher  high 
waters  during  the  last  half  of  the  period.  But  in  this  case,  as  at  Pittsburg, 
higher  low  waters  are  also  indicated.  In  fact,  in  both  cases,  the  greater  run- 
off in  the  later  period  was  clearly  due  to  greater  precipitation. 

6  I  have  seen  in  the  last  few  years  abandoned  farms  (abandoned  because  of 
their  unprofitableness)  on  the  western  slopes  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains, 
which  are  almost  impenetrable  forests  of  thrifty  trees  suitable  for  making 
mine  posts  and  telegraph  poles.  There  are,  of  course,  large. areas  subject  to  fires 
at  intervals  of  a  few  years,  but  that  they  are  subject  to  such  recurrent  fires  Is 


FOREST    LANDS    FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  75 

The  records  of  some  American  rivers  have  been  given.  It  is,  of  course,  in 
Europe  that  one  would  expect  to  find  more  definite  data,  because  of  the  longer 
periods  through  which  records  have  been  kept.  The  histories  of  several  of  these 
streams  have  been  examined  without  finding  any  confirmation  whatever  of  the 
forestry  theory.  The  floods  on  the  river  Seine,  for  example,  show  greater 
heights  in  the  sixteenth  century  than  in  the  nineteenth.  The  most  exhaustive 
investigation  of  the  records  of  European  rivers,  however,  is  that  of  the  Danube, 
the  great  river  of  central  Europe,  recently  made  by  Ernst  Lauda,  chief  of  the 
hydrographic  bureau  of  the  Austrian  Government.  The  years  1897  and  1899 
brought  destructive  floods  to  the  valley  of  the  Danube,  that  of  1899  being 
particularly  severe.  M.  Lauda  prepared  an  exhaustive  report  upon  this  flood, 
published  in  1900,  accompanied  by  elaborate  maps  and  tables  and  a  searching 
analysis  of  the  climatic  and  other  conditions.  In  his  "concluding  remarks," 
M.  Lauda  traces  the  history  of  the  Danube  floods  for  eight  hundred  years, 
including  in  all  125  floods.  His  conclusions  are  that  floods  were  formerly  just 
as  frequent  and  as  high  as  they  are  in  recent  times,  and  that  the  progressive 
deforestation  of  the  country  has  had  no  effect  in  increasing  them.  In  fact,  the 
records  of  the  flood  of  1899,  which  was  a  summer  flood,  produced  almost 
entirely  by  rain,  showed  that  it  was  severest  on  those  very  parts  of  the  water- 
shed that  were  most  heavily  forested. 

At  the  Tenth  International  Congress  of  Navigation,  held  at  Milan  in  1905, 
one  of  the  four  questions  appointed  for  discussion  was  the  very  one  here  under 
consideration.  Papers  were  presented  by  representatives  from  France,  Ger- 
many, Italy,  Austria,  and  Russia.  While  all  the  writers  heartily  favored  forest 
culture,  the  opinion  was  practically  unanimous  that  forests  exert  no  appreciable 
influence  upon  the  extremes  of  flow  in  rivers.  It  appears,  therefore,  that 
European  experience  does  not  support  the  currently  accepted  theory. 

So  much  for  the  evidence  supplied  by  the  records  in  this  country  and  abroad. 
The  constantly  reiterated  statement  that  floods  are  increasing  in  fre- 
quency and  intensity,  as  compared  with  former  times,  has  nothing  to  support 
it.  There  are,  it  is  true,  periods  when  floods  are  more  frequent  than  at  others, 
and  hasty  conclusions  are  always  drawn  at  such  times;  but,  taking  the  records 
year  after  year  for  considerable  periods,  no  change  worth  considering  is  dis- 
coverable. The  explanation  of  these  periods  of  high  water,  like  the  one  now 
prevailing,  must,  of  course,  be  sought  in  precipitation.  That  is  where  floods 
come  from,  and  it  is  very  strange  that  those  who  are  looking  so  eagerly  for  a 
cause  of  these  floods  .lump  at  an  indirect  cause  and  leave  the  direct  one  entirely 
untouched.  In  the  records  of  precipitation,  wherever  they  exist,  will  be  found 
a  full  and  complete  explanation  of  every  one  of  the  floods  that  have  seemed 
unusually  frequent  and  severe  in  recent  years.  A  few  examples  will  be  cited : 

The  great  Kaw  River  flood  of  1903,  which  wrought  such  havoc  in  Kansas 
City,  was  caused  by  a  wholly  exceptional  rainfall  over  nearly  all  the  water- 
shed of  that  stream.  In  the  first  three  weeks  of  May,  1903,  more  than  the 
normal  amount  (4.5  inches)  for  the  entire  month  fell.  This  was  followed  in 
the  next  five  days  by  3.4  inches,  and  upon  this  was  piled  4.7  inches  in  the  suc- 
ceeding five  days,  by  which  time  the  flood  had  crested. 

In  the  flood  of  1906  in  western  Washington,  which  did  enormous  damage  and 
stopped  railway  traffic'for  upward  of  two  weeks,  the  crest  of  the  flood  occurred 
about  the  15th  of  the  month.  The  month  of  October  had  been  very  wet,  and  the 
ground  and  forest  storage  was  exhausted.  In  the  first  half  of  November,  25 
per  cent  more  rain  fell  than  in  the  normal  for  the  entire  month,  and  of  this 
about  one-half  came  on  the  13th,  14th,  and  15th. 

In  the  flood  season  of  1905,  on  the  watershed  of  the  upper  Mississippi,  there 
fell  in  the  month  .of  April  above  Pokegama  Falls  2.55  inches;  in  M-uy,  4.95 
inches ;  in  June,  8.03  inches,  and  in  July,  6.88  inches ;  a  total  of  22.41  inches. 
The  normal  for  the  entire  year  is  26.5  inches. 

proof  of  their  rapid  production  of  fuel  which  means  twigs  and  leaves  in  great 
abundance.  (Col.  Thomas  P.  Roberts,  Pittsburg,  Pa.) 

The  forest  area  in  Vermont  is  probably  10  per  cent  greater  than  forty  years 
ago.  Of  course  the  quality  of  the  forest  is  inferior,  but  that  has  no  effect  on 
the  watershed.  (Arthur  M.  Vaughan,  state  forester.) 

Farms  in  the  Connecticut  Valley  are  among  the  richest  in  the  State  (New 
Hampshire)  and  have  been  less  abandoned  than  elsewhere.  There  has  been, 
however,  a  goodly  acreage,  very  probably  amounting  to  25  per  cent,  which  was 
cleared  land  in  1850,  and  which  at  the  present  time  has  reverted  to  forest, 
much  of  it  excellent  white-pine  forest.  (Philip  W.  Ayres,  forester.) 


76  FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

In  the  record-breaking  flood  of  1907  in  the  Sacramento  Valley  88  per  cent  of 
the  normal  for  the  month  of  March  (based  on  twenty-one  years'  observation) 
fell  in  three  days  (17-19),  and  on  one  day  the  precipitation  ranged  from  5  to 
8  inches  at  the  different  stations. 

In  the  extraordinary  flood  of  May  and  June,  1908,  in  western  Montana,  the 
precipitation  for  May,"  at  four  selected  stations,  was  6.5  inches  and  for  June 
4.2  inches.  The  greater  portion  of  this  fell  late  in  May  and  early  in  June. 
The  normal  for  May  is  2.6  inches  and  for  June  2.3  inches. 

Similar  conditions  prevail  in  every  great  flood,  and  the  true  explanation  is 
found  in  them  and  not  at  all  in  the  presence  or  absence  of  forests  on  the  water- 
sheds. Whether  the  forests  are  in  any  way  responsible  for  the  precipitation 
itself  and  so,  indirectly,  for  the  floods,  brings  up  the  third  of  the  foregoing 
general  propositions,  viz,  that  forests  do  increase  precipitation.  However 
strong  may  be  the  popular  belief  in  this  theory,  there  is  nothing  in  the  records 
of  rainfall  to  give  it  substantial  support.  The  author  has  had  occasion,  in 
connection  with  his  official  work,  to  compare  the  rainfall  records  in  the  north- 
ern half  of  the  United  States  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  often  with  this 
particular  point  in  mind,  and  he  has  never  found  anything  to  indicate  a  change. 
So  far  as  he  has  examined  European  records  the  same  result  holds,  and  he 
believes  it  to  be  true  the  world  over,  except  where  climatic  changes  have  re- 
sulted from  causes  entirely  disconnected  with  the  operations  of  man  in  chang- 
ing the  face  of  nature.  In  fact,  the  claim  that  forests  increase  precipitation 
(about  10  per  cent,  according  to  Mr.  Pinchot),  leads  to  some  contradictory 
results  in  the  forestry  argument.  Coincident  with  our  recent  high  waters, 
which  are  attributed  so  largely  to  deforestation,  there  has  been  an  increase  in 
precipitation,  where  there  should,  apparently,  have  been  a  decrease.0  It  is 
evident  that  where  one  rule  applies  the  other  fails.  So,  likewise,  it  is  held 
that  forests  are  necessary  to  protect  mountain  slopes  because  of  the  greater 
precipitation  prevailing  there;  yet  the  forests  are  said  to  increase  this  precipi- 
tation materially. 

There  is  really  very  little,  theoretically,  to  support  the  claim  that  forests 
insure  precipitation.  It  is  said  that  the  cooler  status  of  forest  arens  condenses 
moisture  and  induces  precipitation ;  but  if  tliis  were  so  in  midsummer,  when 
the  least  precpitation  falls,  how  about  the  rest  of  the  year  when  no  such  dif- 
ference exists,  but  the  reverse,  if  anything?  Take,  for  example,  the  great  for- 
ests around  the  source  of  the  Yellowstone.  During  the  period  when  the  bulk 
of  the  precipitation  falls  the  temperature  of  the  forests  can  not  differ  materially 
from  the  outside,  and  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  forest  exercises  much 
influence  upon  the  snowfall. 

The  fact  that  these  high  areas  are  generally  wooded  is  frequently  cited  to 
prove  that  forests  produce  the  higher  rates  of  precipitation  which  also  prevail 
there.  Rut  would  it  not  be  more  reasonable  to  say  that  the  forests  flourish 
there  because  of  the  higher  precipitation,  and  that  the  latter  is  due  to  the  ele- 
vated situation  and  consequent  lower  temperature?  Is  not  this,  in  fact,  the  rea- 
son why  precipitation  is  nearly  always  greater  upon  the  hills  than  upon  the 
neighboring  lowland?  The  mountains  are  nature's  wine  press  by  which  she 
extracts  from  an  unwilling  atmosphere  the  elixir  of  life  for  the  hillsides  and 
the  valleys  below,  and  she  does  this  whether  the  forests  have  been  cut  away 
or  not. 

In  one  respect,  and  a  very  important  one,  forests  diminish  precipitation,  and 
that  is  in  the  deposition  of  dew.  Dew  is  essentially  an  open-country  phenomenon, 
where  the  radiation  of  heat  from  the  earth's  surface  is  unobstructed.  Clouds 
or  high  cover  of  any  kind,  and  also  wind,  interfere  with  this  process  and  prevent 
the  dew  from  gathering.  It  collects  in  full  strength  on  low -shrubbery,  to  a  less 
degree  on  small  trees,  as  in  orchards,  and  penetrates  for  short  distances  under 
forest  cover.  In  the  heart  of  the  native  forest  of  full-grown  timber,  however, 


°As  a  step  in  the  crescendo  of  gloomy  forebodings  upon  this  subject,  that 
have  filled  the  periodicals  during  the  past  twelve  months,  the  following  from 
the  September  Scrap  Book  is  the  very  latest :  "  When  our  forests  are  gone  the 
streams  will  dry  up,  the  rivers  will  cease  to  run,  the  rain  will  fall  no  more,  and 
America  will  be  a  desert."  Considering  how  large  a  percentage  of  our  forests 
has  already  disappeared,  the  extraordinary  rains  in  all  parts  of  the  United 
States  during  the  past  year  are  not  exactly  in  line  with  this  dismal  prophecy. 
If  one  were  to  judge  from  the  records  of  the  past  few  years  only,  he  must 
conclude  that  deforestation  is  increasing  rainfall. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  77 

dew  is  practically  unknown.  The  quantity  deposited  in  the  open  country  in 
a  single  night  is  quite  large  under  favorable  conditions,  leaving  the  effect  on 
shrubbery  and  on  the  ground  of  a  considerable  shower.  As  it  gathers  in  greater 
or  smaller  quantities  on  every  clear,  still  night  in  the  eastern  sections  of  the 
country,  except  in  the  colder  season  of  the  year,  the  total  quantity  must  be 
quite  large.0 

One  authority  holds  that  dew  does  not  come  entirely  from  the  air,  but  in  part 
from  the  ground.  It  is  said  that  water  which  in  the  daytime  passes  from  the 
ground  and  plants  into  the  air  is  prevented  from  doing  this  at  night,  because 
the  air  can  not  receive  it,  and  therefore  it  gathers  in  visible  form  on  the  ground 
and  vegetation ;  but  if  this  were  true,  it  really  makes  no  difference  in  the  benefit 
which  comes  from  the  dew.  Whether  the  low  temperature  due  to  radiation 
causes  a  deposit  of  moisture  from  the  air  or  prevents  the  air  from  absorbing 
moisture  which  it  otherwise  would,  the  result,  so  far  as  the  ground  and  vegeta- 
tion are  concerned,  is  practically  the  same. 

This  may  be  as  good  a  place  as  any  to  note  one  important  characteristic  of 
precipitation,  and  that  is  its  tendency  to  move  in  cycles.  It  is  well  known  that 
dry  years  often  follow  each  other  for  long  periods  with  great  regularity,  and 
that  these  are  succeeded  by  wet  periods.  Take  the  region  of  the  upper  Missis- 
sippi reservoirs  where  the  normal  precipitation,  based  upon  twenty-one  years'  ob- 
servation, is  27.1  inches;  in  the  ten  years  18SG-1895  this  normal  was  exceeded 
only  once;  in  the  succeeding  ten  years  the  record  fell  appreciably  below  it  only 
once.  Omitting  these  two  years,  the  mean  for  the  two  periods  of  nine  years 
was  24.7  and  30  inches,  respectively,  an  average  yearly  difference  of  nearly  one- 
tifth  of  the  normal.  Following  the  well-known  law  that  the  percentage  of  run- 
off increases  and  diminishes  with  the  precipitation,  the  disparity  between  the 
run-offs  for  the  two  periods  was  greater  still. 

This  phenomenon  is  also  admirably  illustrated  in  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  levels 
of  the  Great  Lakes,  for  these  immense  storage  reservoirs  not  only  absorb  and 
distribute  annual  variations  of  run-off,  but  equalize  to  a  large  degree  the  varia- 
tions from  year  to  year.  During  the  period  of  the  eighties  there  wns  a  general 
rise  in  the  lake  levels,  except  Superior,  and  many  people  ascribed  this  fact  to  de- 
forestation, which  allowed  the  water  to  find  its  way  more  quickly  into  the  Lakes. 
During  the  nineties  there  was  a  period  of  general  subsidence,  occasioning  con- 
siderable anxiety,  and  it  was  frequently  asserted  at  that  time  that  this  was  due 
to  deforestation,  which  was  drying  up  the  sreams.  For  some  years  now  the 
Lakes  have  been  rising,  Ontario  being  the  highest  in  forty  years;  and  with 
another  wet  year  the  levels  will  almost  reach  record  heights. 

The  long  record  of  the  Danube  floods  already  referred  to  is  another  example. 
Almost  invariably  high  floods  would  follow  each  other  for  several  years  in 
close  succession,  and  then  would  come  long  intervals  of  ordinary  high  waters. 

These  periodic  changes  are  not,  of  course,  due  at  all  to  the  presence  or  absence 
of  forests,  for  they  occur  just  the  same  whether  forest  conditions  remain  un- 
changed or  not.  It  is  an  order  of  .nature  not  at  all  understood,  but  nevertheless 
fully  established  as  a  fact.  Just  now  we  are  in  an  era  of  high  precipitation 
and  consequently  of  high  waters.  There  is  a  disposition  to  "  view  with  alarm  " 
these  exaggerated  conditions.  Rarely  does  one  stop  to  think  how  far  better  it 
is  to  the  country  to  have  these  wet  periods,  even  with  all  their  floods,  than  the 
dry  periods  that  will  surely  follow.  A  single  dry  year  may  cause  more  loss  to 
the  country  through  the  shrinkage  of  crops  than  the  floods  of  an  entire  cycle  of 
wet  years. 

Related  to  the  subject  of  precipitation  is  that  of  evaporation  as  affecting  the 
quantity  of  water  that  remains  upon  the  ground.  Generally  speaking,  the  sur- 
face evaporation  in  summer  should  be  greater  in  the  open  than  in  the  forest 
because  of  the  more  direct  action  of  the  sun  and  wind  :  but  in  the  height  of  sum- 
mer the  forests  arrest  precipitation  to  such  an  extent  in  the  leaves  and  humus 
that  more  of  it  escapes  through  evaporation  than  in  the  open.  The  effect  of 

aThe  author  has  never  seen  any  data  as  to  the  actual  quantities  of  dew  de- 
posited in  different  localities  and  conditions,  and  hopes  that  the  discussion  of 
this  paper  may  bring  some  to  light.  He  has,  however,  vivid  recollections  on 
the  subject  when,  as  a  lad  on  a  dairy  farm,  it  was  his  unlucky  lot  to  go  bare- 
footed after  the  cows  every  morning  without  waiting  to  see  whether  the  sun 
was  going  to  shine  or  not.  He  knows  from  experience  how  near  zero  the  dew 
point  can  get.  and  how  wet  dew  is;  and  also  that  the  warmest  place  in  the 
world  at  such  times  is  where  a  cow  has  lain  all  night,  and  next  to  that  the 
dry  precincts  of  the  tall  woods. 


78  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

forests  upon  evaporation  through  the  medium  of  their  leaves  finds  its  counter- 
part in  the  similar  action  of  the  growing  crops  that  overspread  deforested  areas. 
As  already  pointed  out,  the  forests  of  the  mountains  increase  the  evaporation 
from  snow  very  materially. 

Where  the  balance  lies  among  all  these  conflicting  influences  affecting  precipi- 
tation and  evaporation  it  is  impossible  to  say,  and  when  the  records  are  ex- 
amined it  must  be  admitted  that  they  afford  no  answer.  So  far  as  the  re- 
searches of  science  have  yet  determined,  the  presence  or  absence  of  forests  cuts 
no  figure  in  climatic  conditions.  These  depend  upon  causes  of  far  greater  magni- 
tude and  are  influenced,  if  at  all,  only  to  an  insignificant  degree  by  the  operations 
of  those  who  occupy  the  planet. 

The  fourth  proposition  of  the  forestry  argument  is  that  forests  are  necessary 
to  prevent  erosion  on  steep  slopes  and  the  consequent  silting  of  reservoirs  and 
watercourses  below.  Here  again  there  is  the  same  deficiency  of  evidence  to 
support  the  theory  that  has  characterized  the  three  propositions  already  con- 
sidered. The  author  has  been  unable  to  find  anything  to  confirm  it.  In  his 
observations,  embracing  pretty  nearly  all  varieties  of  timber  laud  in  the  northern 
two-thirds  of  the  United  States,  he  has  still  to  see  a  single  example  where  the 
mere  cutting  off  of  forest  trees  leads  to  an  extensive  erosion  of  the  soil.  Almost 
invariably,  and  it  may  be  said  always  except  in  very  unusual  conditions,  a  soil 
that  will  sustain  a  heavy  forest  growth  will  immediately  put  forth,  wjien  the 
forest  is  cut  down  (or  even  burned  down),  a  new  growth,  generally  in  part 
different  from  the  first,  but  forming  an  equally  effective  cover  to  the  soil.  The 
only  approach  to  an  exception  to  this  rule  that  he  has  observed  is  in  some  of 
the  high  mountain  forests  where  the  soil  is  extremely  thin  and  weak  and  the 
action  of  nature  in  producing  vegetable  growth  is  slow.  In  the  forest  areas  of 
the  East,  the  growth  that  follows  tree  cutting — consising  not  only  of  new  trees, 
but  of  briars  and  small  brush  of  every  description — accumulates  very  rapidly 
and  forms  a  more  effective  mat  against  erosion  than  the  original  forest  itself 
and  equally  effective  in  storing  water.  Such  low  growths  have  also  a  better 
effect  upon  snow  melting,  because  they  give  both  wind  and  sun  freer  play. 
Certainly  the  ground  in  a  forest  under  culture,  with  the  debris  raked  up,  is 
more  easily  eroded  than  that  of  a  slashing  or  second-growth  area,  or  even  good 
meadow  or  pasture.  A  forest  soil  unprotected  by  forest  debris  is  almost  as 
erosible  as  a  field  under  culture. 

The  increased  erosion  of  the  soil,  of  which  so  much  is  heard,  does  not  result 
from  forest  cutting,  but  from  cultivation,  using  that  term  in  its  broad  sense 
to  include  all  of  man's  operations  for  the  occupancy  and  utilization  of  the 
ground  from  which  the  forests  have  been  removed.  It  is  the  "  breaking  of  the 
soil "  that  leads  to  its  erosion  by  the  elements.  Roads  and  trails  are  one  of 
the  great  sources  of  erosion  in  hilly  countries,  but  plowing  and  tilling  are  the 
principal  causes.  The  question  is  not  one  of  forests  in  the  first  instance,  but 
of  how  far  the  cultivation  and  occupancy  of  the  soil  can  be  dispensed  with. 
Even  on  steep  mountain  slopes,  where  erosion  and  ruin  have  resulted,  the 
effect  is  often  due  to  the  clumsy  and  injudicious  work  of  the  husbandman  who 
uses  no  judgment  of  cause  and  effect  in  the  way  he  exposes  the  soil  to  the  force 
of  the  storms.  The  successful  cultivation  of  hillsides  in  every  quarter  of  the 
globe  is  an  everlasting  refutation  of  the  argument  that  forests  are  necessary  to 
protect  the  face  of  the  earth  wherever  cultivation  is  practicable.  Some  classes 
of  cultivated  vegetation,  like  the  well-knit  turf  of  meadow  or  pasture,  are  a 
better  protection  against  erosion  thau  any  ordinary  forest  cover.  That  there 
are  sections  of  the  country  where  erosion  of  the  soil  is  much  more  rapid  than 
in  others  under  similar  conditions  is  perfectly  true.  This  is  especially  the  case 
with  certain  districts  in  the  Southern  States,  and  very  likely  forest  protection 
is  there  better  than  any  other;  but  it  is  still  true  that  the  problem  of  control 
of  soil  erosion  on  cleared  lauds  is  essentially  a  problem  in  cultivation.  It  is 
not  so  much  the  absence  of  the  forest  as  it  is  the  cutting  of  roads  and  ditches, 
the  upturning  of  the  soil,  and  the  various  kindred  operations  of  man  that 
quicken  the  run-off  and  increase  the  surface  soil  wash. 

The  oft-repeated  assertion  that,  owing  to  the  cutting  off  of  forests,  our  rivers 
are  shoaling  up  more  than  formerly  may  be  challenged  absolutely.  There  is 
nothing  in  our  river  history  to  support  it  except  in  a  few  instances,  like  the 
Yuba  Kiver  in  California,  where  extensive  hydraulic  or  similar  operations  have 
produced  vast  changes.  It  is  exceedingly  doubtful  if  it  can  be  established  by 
any  evidence  worthy  of  the  name  that  the  streams  of  the  Mississippi  basin  are 
more  obstructed  by  sand  bars  than  formerly.  The  author's  observation  of 


FOREST  LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  79 

upward  of  twenty  years  and  inquiries  from  many  sources  fail  to  disclose  any 
such  evidence.  It  would  not,  indeed,  be  surprising  if  some  such  result  were 
noticeable,  for  it  would  naturally  seem  that  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  has 
facilitated  to  some  degree  the  wash  into  the  streams.  If  this  is  the  case, 
however,  the  rivers  do  not  show  it.  They  have  a  way  of  distributing  their 
burdens  so  as  to  meet  their  necessities  and,  except  in  rare  cases,  they  do  not 
shoal  appreciably  more  than  formerly.^ 

The  distinction  between  erosion  actually  resulting  from  cultivation  and  that 
assumed  to  result  from  timber  cutting  is  important  to  keep  in  mind,  for  it 
fixes  the  burden  of  responsibility  where  it  belongs.  It  shows  that  this  erosion 
or  soil  wash  can  be  reduced  only  by  the  elimination  or  control  of  cultivation, 
and  the  question  at  once  becomes  that  of  the  extent  to  which  such  control  or 
elimination  is  practicable.  For  example,  it  is  insisted  that  the  suggested  reser- 
voir system  of  the  Ohio,  to  be  referred  to  later  on,  will  be  absolutely  dependent 
for  its  integrity  and  permanence  upon  keeping  the  watersheds  above  them 
covered  with  forests.  But  it  is  understood  not  to  be  the  policy  to  include  in 
the  proposed  forest  reserves  any  lands  that  are  fitted  for  agriculture.6  As 
elsewhere  pointed  out,  that  portion  of  these  areas  which  is  not  reduced  to 
cultivation  will  not  be  subject  to  erosion  more  than  at  present  by  the  mere  fact 
of  cutting  off  the  timber,  for  the  natural  growth  on  logged-off  lands  is  just 
as  good  a  protection  as  the  forests  themselves.  If  the  agricultural  tracts  are 
still  to  be  left  open  for  occupancy,  the  source  of  sediment  remains  uncurbed 
and  the  whole  argument  for  forest  reserves,  on  the  ground  of  protecting  the 
reservoirs  from  sedimentation,  falls  to  the  ground. 

Some  reference  should  be  made  to  the  real  significance  of- the  alarming  re- 
ports which  have  been  put  forth  concerning  the  washing  of  our  soils  into  the 
sea.  Over  and  over  during  the  past  year  has  the  statement  appeared  that 
1,000,000,000  tons  of  our  soil  is  annually  carried  by  our  rivers  into  the  ocean. 
This  figure  itself  is  quite  conservative,  but  the  conclusions  drawn  from  it  are 
not  at  all  so.  Taking  the  results  of  silt  observations  on  the  Mississippi  River 
and  its  tributaries  for  1879  and  applying  the  Missouri  rate  to  all  western 
streams  outside  the  Mississippi  basin  and  the  Ohio  rate  to  all  eastern  streams 
outside  the  same  basin,  a  total  of  about  1,100,000,000  tons  is  indicated.  But 
1879  was  a  low-water  year  in  the  Mississippi  basin  and  the  quantity  for  average 
years  may  probably  be  1,500,000,000  tons  and  for  extreme  years  2,000,000,000 
tons. 

Let  us  look  these  prodigious  quantities  squarely  in  the  face  and  see  what 
they  mean.  Where  does  this  enormous  volume  of  soil  come  from?  Is  it,  as 
one  might  infer  from  published  references  to  the  subject  from  our  cultivated 
fields — an  annual  toll  laid  upon  the  precious  fertility  of  our  agricultural  lands? 
Not  at  all.  Only  a  very  small  proportion  comes  from  this  source.  Possibly 
half  of  the  total  quantity  of  sediment  goes  down  by  the  Mississippi.  All 
authorities  agree  that  the  greater  portion  of  this  comes  from  the  Missouri. 
From  computations  which  the  author  has  nfade  he  believes  that  fully  two- 
thirds  of  it  conies  from  that  source.  The  observations  of  3879  indicate  that 
five  times  as  much  sediment  comes  from  that  stream  as  from  the  Ohio. 
But  where  does  the  Missouri  get  it?  Almost  entirely  from  the  most  useless 
areas  of  land  with  which  any  country  was  ever  afflicted.  The  barren  Bad 
Lands  are  the  principal  source.  Much  comes  from  the  mountains;  much  from 
the  sand  hills;  very  little,  relatively,  from  cultivated  areas.  Of  the  balance 
of  the  soil  wash  of  the  United  States,  by  far  the  greater  portion  comes  from 

°The  absurd  length  to  which  this  erosion  argument  has  been  carried  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  remark  made  in  a  recent  address  by  one  of  the  officials  of  the 
Forestry  Service:  "  This  energy  (of  running  water)  is  expended  in  rolling  along 
stones  and  gravel  to  finally  build  up  the  mouths  or  beds  of  the  great  rivers. 
Next  year  there  will  be  a  bill  introduced  in  Congress  providing  a  forest  reserve 
in  the  Appalachian  Mountains,  so  that  the  rocks  from  these  mountains  will  be 
kept  from  the  Mississippi  River!" 

6  Among  references  to  the  intention  not  to  absorb  agricultural  lands  in  the 
areas  conserved  by  the  reservoirs  is  the  following  from  A.  F.  Horton,  Assoc.  M. 
Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  in  Engineering  News,  June  11,  1908:  "The  reader  should  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  conserved  area  is  not  rendered  unfit  for  cultiva- 
tion or  other  use,  but  that  only  a  small  portion  of  the  conserved  area  (that 
covered  by  the  reservoir)  is  so  utilized  that  its  value  for  cultivation  is  de- 
stroyed." 


80  FOEEST   LANDS  FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

other  similar  sections  of  the  West,  where  the  streams  carry  enormous  loads 
of  sediment.  The  entire  Colorado  system  is  even  more  distinguished  in  this 
respect  than  is  the  Missouri.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Kio  Grande,  the  Pecos, 
and  the  upper  courses  of  the  Arkansas  and  lied.  Even  the  streams  of  the 
Great  Interior  Basin  are  heavy  silt  hearers,  and  the  same  is  true  of  many  of 
the  streams  of  the  Pacific  coast.  The  streams  flowing  into  Puget  Sound  are 
heavily  laden  with  silt  at  certain  portions  of  the  year,  and  the  great  Columbia 
bar  is  impressive  evidence  of  the  vast  burden  of  sediment  which  that  mighty 
river  has  carried  to  the  sea.  Nearly  all  of  the  annual  load  carried  by  these 
streams  is  entirely  unaffected  by  anything  which  man  has  done.  It  is  the 
regular  natural  carving  down  of  the  hills  and  building  up  of  the  valleys  and 
estuaries  below. 

The  eastern  streams  are  clear  and  sediment-free  compared  with  those  of  the 
West;  but  even  in  these  a  large  portion  of  their  sediment  is  eroded  from  the 
gorges  and  canyons  of  the  hills  and  mountains,  which  will  continue  to  wash 
away  as  long  as  the  rivers  flow.  This  particular  class  of  erosion,  on  both 
eastern  and  western  rivers,  is  far  less  objectionable  than  one  is  led  in  these 
later  days  to  believe.  Has  it  not  from  the  beginning  been  one  of  the  most 
beneficent  operations  of  nature?  Are  not  the  richest  lands  in  the  world — the 
river  bottoms  and  deltas— built  up  in  this  wayV  To  a  very  great  extent 
the  irrigated  lands  of  the  West  are  composed  entirely  of  the  debris  from  the 
mountains  and  the  bad  lands.  Even  to-day  this  tribute  from  the  highlands 
is  of  great  value.  The  periodic  enrichment  of  the  Ohio  bottom  lands  and 
similar  tracts  in  hundreds  of  other  places  is  of  the  highest  economic  impor- 
tance. The  soil-laden  waters  of  irrigation  in  -the  spring,  though  sometimes 
injurious  to  the  growing  crop  for  the  time  being,  are  on  the  whole  extremely 
beneficial.  The  damage  from  sediment  is  not  in  its  injury  to  the  lands  ordina- 
rily, but  to  ditches,  canals,  reservoirs,  and  similar  works.  On  the  whole  it  is, 
and  always  has  been,  a  benefit  to  the  lowlands.  Even  that  portion  carried 
out  to  sea  builds  up  deltas  and  surely,  though  slowly,  extends  the  habitable 
area  of  the  globe.  IS'ot  alone  in  the  resources  of  water  and  timber,  but,  in 
the  perpetual  renewal  of  soil  as  well,  has  the  valley  said  to  the  mountains 
throughout  the  world's  history:  "I  will  lift  up  mine  eyes  unto  the  hills  from 
whence  cometh  my  help." 

Sediment  of  this  character,  except  when  accompanied  by  alkaline  salts  or 
other  similar  ingredients,  is  not  injurious  to  domestic  supply.  The  water  of  the 
Missouri  Itiver  is  one  of  the  healthiest  drinking  waters  in  the  world  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  it  rs  one  of  the  muddiest." 

The  proportion  of  soil  wash  that  comes  from  cultivated  fields  is  really  very 
small  compared  with  the  enormous  total  that  the  rivers  carry  away.  Heavy 
rains  undoubtedly  wash  farm  soils  a  great  deal,  but  this  erosion  is  in  large  part 
a  transfer  from  one  spot  to  another  and  not  an  absolute  loss.  The  history  of 
the  old  Ohio  Canal  reservoirs  indicates  very  little  filling  in  the  sixty-six  years 
that  they  have  been  In  existence.  According  to  the  chief  engineer  of  the  Ohio 
state  board  of  public  works.  It  is  scarcely  appreciable  in  some  of  the  reservoirs, 
and  in  none  does  it  amount  to  as  much  as  0  inches,  or  one  two-huudredths  of  an 
inch  per  year  from  the  tributary  watershed.  Yet  these  reservoirs  are  sur- 
rounded by  rich  agricultural  lands.  The  silt  observations  on  the  Ohio  in  1S79 
indicate  only  a  little  more  than  one  six -hundred  ths  of  au  inch  over  the  entire 
watershed;  but  this,  it  is  true,  was  a  year  of  light  rains. 

It  Is  readily  seen  that  the  formidable  danger  of  which  so  much  has  been 
written  of  late  becomes  quite  harmless  as  to  quantity  when  it  comes  down  to 
the  Individual  farm.  The  harm  is  probably  not  so  much  in  the  quantity  of  soil 
actually  lost  as  in  the  fact  that  the  soil  may  be  leeched  of  some  of  its  more 
important  ingredients.  The  evil  is  one  which  can  be  controlled  only  by  better 
methods  of  farming,  whereby  the  surface  waters  will  be  restrained  from  eroding 
the  soil;  but  even  these  measures  have  their  adverse  side,  for  when  heavy  rains 
prevail  for  a  long  time  it  is  more  important  to  the  farmer  to  get  the  water  off 
bis  land  than  it  is  to  save  a  little  soil.  Most  of  the  soil  will  stop  on  lower 
ground  and  not  be  wholly  lost,  but  if  the  water  is  not  gotten  rid  of  the  crop 
niav  be  ruined. 

°The  late  J.  B.  Johnson,  M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  used  to  say,  in  extolling  the  vir- 
tues of  Missouri  Kiver  water,  that  it  was  the  most  perfectly  filtered  water  in  the 
world;  with  this  difference,  however,  that  in  the  ordinary  case  water  is  run 
through  the  filter,  but  here  the  filter  is  run  through  the  water. 


FOBEST  LANDS  FOE  THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.          81 

The  caving  of  the  banks  of  our  great  rivers  is  constantly  cited  as  an  example 
of  soil  loss  on  an  enormous  scale,  and  it  is  asserted  that  this  condition  is  worse 
now  than  formerly.  The  Mississippi  and  Missouri  rivers,  practically  alike  in 
this  respect,  are  the  two  most  prominent  examples.  The  author  will  consider 
briefly  the  case  of  the  Missouri  because  he  has  had  a  long  and  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  that  stream  from  its  mouth  to  its  source. 

It  may  be  stated  by  way  of  refutation  that  the  actual  condition  of  this  stream 
to-day  is  better  thau  before  settlement  began  in  its  valley,  except  that  possibly 
the  low-water  flow  is  slightly  diminished  to  meet  the  demands  for  irrigation. 
The  stream  is  not  "constantly  becoming  more  and  more  savage,"  as  a  recent 
writer  asserts.  On  the  other  hand,  its  natural  savagery  is  much  restrained. 
Probably  100  miles  of  its  banks  are  protected ;  snags  and  drift  heaps  are  largely 
removed;  considerable  bottom  land  has  been  reclaimed  and  turned  to  indus- 
trial use;  floods  are  no  greater  than  they  used  to  be,  and  navigation  is  safer 
and  easier.  Navigation  has  ceased,  not  because  the  river  has  deteriorated,  as  is 
commonly  asserted,  but  because  the  natural  difficulties  peculiar  to  this  stream 
are  so  great  and  so  hard  to  overcome  that  boats  can  not  live  and  do  business 
-at  the  same  rates  at  which  railroads  transport  freight. 

That  the  river  is  a  most  destructive  one  to  the  bottom  lands  along  its  course 
is  only  too  true;  but  the  character  of  its  destructive  work  is  generally  misun- 
derstood. The  writer  just  quoted  states  that  the  river  carries  away  annually 
8,000  acres  of  bottom  land  within  the  limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri  alone. 
The  total  acreage  of  these  lands  is  about  640,000.  If  this  statement  were  true, 
more  than  the  entire  area  would  have  been  carried  away  since  the  voyage  of 
Lewis  and  Clark,  and  if  the  process  had  been  continuous  since  Columbus  dis- 
covered America  the  river  to-day  would  be  flowing  in  its  original  channel  in 
the  solid  rock,  75  to  90  feet  below  the  present  surface.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
there  is  more  soil  in  the  valley  to-day  than  there  was  at  the  date  of  either  of 
these 'events.  Taking  an  average  for  a  considerable  period,  none  of  the  bottom 
land  is  lost.  It  has  always  been  slowly  rising  through  accretion.  The  bank 
caving  is  only  a  transfer  from  one  point  of  the  shore  to  another.  For  every 
•dissolving  bank  there  is  a  nascent  bar.  Where  steamboats  ran  last  year  wil- 
lows may  be  growing  this,  and  next  year  the  farmer  may  be  planting  his  corn. 
The  havoc  wrought  concerns  the  individual  owner,  but  not  the  valley  bottom 
itself.  The  cruel  losses  attract  attention ;  the  unobtrusive  gains  do  not ;  but  the 
account  always  balances  itself.  The'  harm  done  is  first  to  the  individual  whose 
possessions  are  swept  away,  and  second  to  the  community  through  paralysis  of 
development,  depreciation  of  values,  and  the  holding  back  of  this  natural  garden 
spot  from  becoming  what  it  ought  to  be.  The  evil  is  a  very  real  one,  and  the 
author  has  long  endeavored,  though  without  success,  to  secure  provision  in  the 
river  and  harbor  bill  for  its  amelioration.0  Great  as  the  evil  is,  however,  it  is 
not  at  all  in  the  nature  of  an  actual  loss  of  land  to  the  valley. 

It  must  be  clear  from  the  foregoing  that  the  bottom  lands  of  the  Missouri  add 
nothing  whatever  to  the  total  quantity  of  sediment  that  passes  out  of  the  mouth 
of  the  stream,  for  these  bottoms  have  been  increasing  rather  than  diminishing 
in  quantity.  Likewise,  the  Mississippi  bottoms  contribute  nothing  to  the  volume 
of  sediment  that  is  carried  into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  It  all  comes  from  the 
uplands,  far  and  near,  but  principally  from  the  more  remote  and  hilly  regions. 
This  load  is  in  the  nature  of  through  traffic.  The  local  freight  picked  up  from 
a  caving  bank  is  mostly  discharged  at  the  next  station.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that  if  the  banks  of  these  streams  were  revetted  from  the  Gulf  to  Pittsburg,  the 
Falls  of  St.  Anthony,  and  the  mouth  of  the  Yellowstone,  the  quantity  of  sedi- 
ment passing  into  the  Gulf  would  not  be  diminished  a  particle.  Such  revetment 
would  nevertheless  be  of  the  very  highest  value,  if  it  could  be  made  to  hold,  for 
it  would  give  permanence  to  the  banks,  security  to  riparian  property,  and  would 
largely  prevent  bar  building  by  training  the  river  into  a  regular  channel  and 
relieving  it  of  everything  except  its  through  load  of  sediment. 

The  bank-caving  problem  of  these  valleys  is  unaffected  in  any  appreciable 
degree  by  the  influence  of  forests  or  culnvation  on  the  watersheds,  and  can  not 
be  solved  or  materially  assisted  by  any  practicable  changes  in  these  conditions. 
The  problem  is  strictly  a  local  one,  and  the  remedy  must  be  a  local  one.  Even 
if  it  were  possible  to  bring  the  waters  down  from  the  uplands  perfectly  clear,  it 
is  not  at  all  certain  that  the  effect  upon  the  bottom  lands  would  not  be  injurious 
rather  than  beneficial ;  for  then  the  caving  soil,  instead  of  being  quickly  depos- 


0  Transactions  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  Vol.  LIV,  p.  336. 
72538— AGB— 09 6 


82  FOREST   LANDS   FOR  THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

ited  again,  would  in  part  be  carried  out  to  sea,  and  the  bottom  lands,  unless 
protected,  would  be  gradually  eaten  away. 

In  addition  to  the  four  main  propositions  discussed  above,  a  few  subordinate 
features  of  the  question  will  now  be  considered. 

A  feature  of  the  Forestry  Service  which  is  generally  overlooked  is  the  possible 
effect  of  culture  upon  the  bed  of  humus,  so  much  relied  upon  in  these  discussions 
to  prove  the  restraining  action  of  forests  upon  run-off.  Mr.  Piuchot,  in  his 
statement  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  said : 

"  The  effect  of  a  forest  on  a  steep  slope  is  to  cover  that  slope  with  leaves, 
rotten  and  half  rotten  sticks,  and  other  mechanical  obstructions,  which  prevent 
the  water  from  running  below  as  rapidly  as  it  would  otherwise." 

It  is  understood  that  the  forest  policy  is  to  keep  this  litter  cleared  up  as  a 
measure  of  fire  protection,  and  one  frequently  sees  in  articles  on  forestry  photo- 
graphs of  the  typical  forest  culture  in  which  the  ground  is  thoroughly  cleaned 
up.  The  result  must  be  to  diminish  proportionately  the  retentive  action  of  the 
forest  bed  and  to  increase  its  liability  to  erosion.  In  the  light  of  the  foregoing 
discussion  fire  protection  is  of  much  greater  importance  than  the  retentive  effect 
of  the  forest  bed  on  the  run-off.  The  remarkable  degree  to  which  the  forest  bed 
will  dry  out  in  prolonged  drought,  making  it  one  vast  tinder  box,  supports  this 
conclusion,  and  is  another  proof  of  the  extreme  desiccating  effect  of  forest 
growth  upon  the  soil. 

It  often  escapes  attention,  except  with  those  who  are  in  the  woods  a  great 
deal,  that  the  water  establishes  little  channels  through  the  debris  where  the 
latter  is  of  long  accumulation  and  somewhat  permanent  in  character.  Such 
debris  does  not  in  reality  offer  so  great  an  obstruction  to  flow  as  one  would 
suppose,  and  as  would  be  the  case  if  its  condition  underwent  frequent  change. 

The  statement  is  constantly  met  that  forests  are  very  efficacious  in  the  pro- 
tection of  river  banks  from  undermining  and  steep  slopes  from  sliding. .  The 
exact  reverse  is  the  case.  As  every  river  engineer  knows  nothing  is  more  disas- 
trous to  a  river  bank  on  an  alluvial  stream  than  heavy  trees.  This  is  due  partly 
to  the  great  weight,  but  in  large  part  to  the  swaying  effect-  of  the  wind  and  the 
enormous  leverage  of  the  long  trunks  which  pry  up  the  ground  and  facilitate 
the  tendency  to  undermining.  One  of  the  regular  policies  of  river  control  is  to 
cut  down  these  trees  for  a  distance  back  from  the  edge  of  the  bank  wherever 
complications  with  private  ownership  do  not  prevent.  Snags  and  driftwood  in 
the  channels  have  always  been  among  the  most  serious  obstacles  to  navigation 
on  streams  flowing  between  forest-covered  banks.  Likewise  where  railroad  or 
highway  grading  cuts  the  skin  of  unstable  mountain  slopes,  the  presence  of 
large  trees  immediately  above  tends  powerfully  to  loosen  the  ground  and  cause 
it  to  slide ;  and  in  such  cases  it  is  necessary  to  cut  down  the  timber.  Far  better 
than  forest  trees  on  river  banks  are  thick  growths  of  willow,  alder,  or  any  of 
the  smn Her  close-growing  shrubs;  and  on  side  hill  slopes  either  such  shrubbery 
or  a  good  turf.0 

In  the  current  discussion  a  great  deal  is  made  of  the  fact  that  mountain 
slopes  are  "quick  spilling,"  the  deduction  being  that  they  therefore  are  more 
productive  of  floods.  This  is  quite  contrary  to  the  fact.  It  is  perfectly  true 
that  more  rain  falls  on  the  hills  than  on  the  lowlands,  that  a  greater  percentage 
of  rainfall  runs  off  from  steep  than  from  flat  slopes,  and  that  it  runs  off  more 
rapidly;  but  it  does  not  follow  at  all  that  these  conditions  produce  greater 
floods.  A  mountain  stream  carries  off  the  water  within  its  banks  a  great  deal 
faster  and  more  safely  than  a  similar  stream  in  the  lowlands.  The  banks  are 
almost  always  stable  and  the  bottoms  rocky  or  composed  of  heavy  gravel  or 
•lowlders;  in  fact,  floods  do  less  harm  on  such  streams  than  on  any  others.  In 
the  lowland,  where  the  streams  have  smaller  slopes  and  unstable  banks,  much 
smaller  run-off  produces  greater  floods  and  more  destruction.  Moreover;  nature 
to  a  large  degree  adapts  streams  to  the  work  required  of  them.  The  channels 

0  The  following  testimony  before  the  JJoard  of  Consulting  Engineers,  Panama 
Canal,  is  to  the  point  (Report,  p.  329)  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Welcker :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  if  Mr.  Dauchy 
thinks  that  vegetation  prevents  the  sliding? 

Mr.  DAUCHY.  My  experience  has  been  the  reverse ;  I  have  stopped  sliding  hills 
•  by  cutting  off  the  vegetation.  The  weight  of  the  timber  on  a  sliding  slope  aids 
materially  to  assist  the  sliding. 

Mr.  WELCKER.  Does  not  the  vegetation  diminish  it? 

Mr.  DAUCHY.  If  you  could  get  a  grass-covered  slope  it  would  help  to  diminish  it. 


FOKEST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  83 

of  the  tributaries  of  the  Ohio  have  been  carved  out  through  long  ages  to  carry 
in  safety  the  average  flood  flow.  Area  for  area  of  watershed,  their  cross-sections 
are  much  larger  than  those  of  streams  in  climates  of  less  rainfall.  The  normal 
section  of  the  Ohio  at  Wheeling  is  over  2  square  feet  for  every  square  mile  of 
watershed,  while  that  of  the  Kaw  River  at  Kansas  City  is  less  than  one-third 
square  foot  per  square  mile.  It  is  therefore  wholly  erroneous  to  conclude  that 
the  streams  of  these  mountains  are  more  subject  to  over-bank  freshets  than 
those  of  the  lowlands  or  that  the  freshets  themselves  are  more  destructive. 
Considering  the  conditions  growing  out  of  settlement  the  reverse  is  unquestion- 
ably the  case.  ' 

There  is  one  other  consideration  of  prime  importance  in  this  forestry  argu- 
ment, and  that  is  the  fact  that  no  possible  development  of  forestry  can  increase 
the  present  percentage  of  forest-covered  areas.  At  least  as  much  ground  as  is 
now  devoted  to  agricultural  purposes  must  continue  to  be  so  used.  The  utmost 
admissible  expansion  of  national  forests  will  never  require  a  greater  area  than 
is  now  occupied  by  forests  and  second  growth  or  logged-off  lauds,  which,  so  far 
as  run-off  and  erosion  are  concerned,  are  just  as  effective  as  the  virgin  forest 
itself,  and  more  effective  than  will  be  the  groomed  forest  of  the. new  regime. 
There  may  be  a  shifting  of  areas  devoted  to  forests,  but  possible  expansion, 
compared  with  the  present  area,  is  so  small  that  its  influence  upon  the  great 
rivers,  even  admitting  the  full  force  of  the  forestry  argument,  would  be  wholly 
inappreciable. 

The  fact  just  dwelt  upon  should  make  us  thankful  that  the  forestry  theory  as 
to  the  stream  flow  is  not  correct.  Whatever  the  value  of  forests  we  can  not 
have  them  everywhere,  and  by  far  the  greater  portions  already  cleared  away 
must  always  remain  deforested.  If  this  fact  of  deforestation  has  brought  with 
it  in  greater  degree  than  of  old  the  calamities  of  high  and  low  waters,  then, 
indeed,  we  are  in  an  unfortunate  case.  But  it  has  not  done  so.  Nature  has 
decreed  no  such  penalty  for  the  subjugation  of  the  wilderness,  and  on  the  whole 
these  natural  visitations  are  less  frequent  and  less  extensive  than  they  were 
before  the  white  man  cut  away  the  forests. 

In  summarizing  below  the  foregoing  argument,  the  author  would  be  particu- 
larly careful  to  guard  against  sweeping  assertions  in  any  of  his  conclusions. 
He  well  understands  how  little  the  subject  is  capable  of  precise  demonstration. 
Snow,  for  example,  does  not  always  fall,  even  in  the  open  country,  under  the 
influence  of  the  wind,  or  it  may  fall  in  a  wet  condition  that  keeps  it  from 
drifting.  Altitude  comes  in  with  its  lower  temperature  and  modifies  the  general 
result.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  a  northern  and  a  southern  exposure 
even  with  the  same  slope  and  topographical  conditions.  Precipitation  scarcely 
ever  occurs  twice  alike  on  the  same  watershed.  The  combination  of  flow  from 
tributaries  is  never  the  same  in  any  two  floods,  and  there  is  an  endless  variety 
of  conditions  that  must  qualify  our  rules  and  make  us  cautious  in  making 
claims  in  a  matter  of  this  kind.  The  author  objects  solely  to  the  contrary 
course  pursued  by  many  forestry  advocates — to  the  extreme  claims  that  forests 
exert  a  regulating  influence  upon  stream  flow  in  times  of  great  floods  or 
extreme  low  water  in  our  larger  rivers.  These  claims  stand  to-day  absolutely 
uuproven.  The  difference  _between  past  and  present  conditions  is  not  great. 
One  influence  offsets  another  with  such  nicety  that  the  change,  if  there  is  any, 
is  hard  to  find.  The  "  delicate  balance  "  maintained  by  nature  where  man  has 
not  cut  away  the  forests  is  replaced  by  other  balances  equally  delicate  and 
efficacious  in  the  drainage  of  lands,  the  growing  of  crops,  and  the  deposition  of 
dew. 

In  the  following  seven  propositions  the  author  sums  up  the  arguments  pre- 
sented in  the  foregoing  pages: 

(1)  The  bed  of  humus  and  debris  that  develops  under  forest  cover  retains 
precipitation  during  the  summer  season,  or  moderately  dry  periods  at  any  time 
of  the  year,  more  effectively  than  do  the  soil  and  crops  of  deforested  areas 
similarly  situated.    It  acts  as  a  reservoir  moderating  the  run-off  from  showers 
and  mitigating  the  severity  of  freshets,  and  promotes  uniformity  of  flow  at 
such  periods. 

(2)  The  above  action  fails  altogether  in  periods  of  prolonged  and  heavy 
precipitation,  which  alone  produce  great  general   floods.     At  such  times  the 
forest  bed  becomes  thoroughly  saturated,  and  water  falling  upon  it  flows  off 
as  readily  as  from  the  bare  soil.    Moreover,  the  forest  storage,  not  being  under 
control,  flows  out  in  swollen  streams,  and  may,  and  often  does,  bring  the  ac- 
cumulated waters  of  a  series  of  storms  in  one  part  of  the  watershed  upon  those 
of  another  which  may  occur  several  days  later ;  so  that,  not  only  does  the  forest 


84  FOBEST  LANDS  FOB  THE   PEOTECTION    OF    WATEBSHEDS. 

at  such  times  exert  no  restraining  effect  upon  floods,  but,  by  virtue  of  its  un- 
controlled reservoir  action,  may  actually  intensify  them. 

(3)  In   periods   of  extreme  summer   heat  forests  operate  to  dimmish   the 
run-off,   because  they  absorb  almost  completely  and  give  off   in  evaporation 
ordinary  showers  which,  in  the  open  country,  produce  a  considerable  temporary 
increase  in  the  streams;  and  therefore,  while  small  springs  and  rivulets  may 
dry  up  more  than  formerly,  this  is  not  true  of  the  larger  rivers. 

(4)  The  effect  of  forests  upon  the  run-off  resulting  from  snow  melting  is  to 
concentrate  it  into  brief  periods  and  thereby  increase  the  severity  of  freshets. 
This  results  (a)  from  the  prevention  of  the  formation  of  drifts,  and  (&)  from 
the  prevention  of  snow  melting  by  sun  action  in  the  spring,  and  the  retention 
of  the  snow  blanket  until  the  arrival  of  hot  weather. 

(5)  Soil  erosion  does  not  result  from  forest  cutting  in  itself,  but  from  cultiva- 
tion,  using   that  term   in  a   broad   sense.     The   question   of  preventing  such 
erosion  or  soil  wash  is  altogether  one  of  dispensing  with  cultivation  or  properly 
controlling  it    The  natural  growth  which  always  follows  the  destruction  of  a 
forest  is  fully  as  effective  in  preventing  erosion,  and  even  in  retaining  run-off, 
as  the  natural  forest. 

(6)  As  a  general  proposition  climate,  and  particularly  precipitation,  have 
not  been  appreciably  modified  by  the  progress  of  settlement  and  the  consequent 
clearing  of  land,  and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason,  theoretically,  why  such  a 
result  should  ensue. 

(7)  The  percentage  of  annual  run-off  to  rainfall  has  been  slightly  increased 
by  deforestation  and  cultivation. 

If  the  foregoing  propositions  are  correct  they  enforce  two  very  important 
conclusions — one  relating  to  the  regulation  of  our  rivers  and  the  other  to 
forestry. 

It  follows  that  no  aid  is  to  be  expected  in  the  control  or  utilization  of  our 
rivers,  either  for  flood  prevention,  navigation,  or  water  power,  by  any  prac- 
ticable application  of  forestry.  Remember  always  that  it  is  the  extreme  of 
flow,  not  the  medium  condition,  that  controls  the  cost  of  river  regulation.  It 
is  the  floods  and  low  waters  that  measure  the  cost.  Any  scheme  of  control 
that  is  not  based  upon  these  Is  worthless.  This  proposition  need  scarcely  be 
urged  upon  the  experienced  engineer.  For  himself  he  would  never  place  any 
real  reliance  upon  forestry.  Called  in  consultation,  for  example,  in  the  problem 
of  protecting  the  city  of  Pittsburg  from  floods,  he  would  be  bound  to  take  as 
his  measure  of  the  problem  the  highest  recorded  flood  on  the  river  with  a 
good  factor  of  safety  on  that,  and  then  figure  out  by  what  methods — artificial 
reservoirs,  levees,  raising  of  grades,  or  clearing  the  river  channel  of  artificial 
obstructions — he  would  obtain  the  desired  relief.  He  would  not  dare,  as  the 
physician  in  the  case,  to  advise  his  patient  that  he  could  dispense  with  or 
lessen  in  any  degree  the  application  of  the  remedies  proposed,  nor  save  one 
dollar  of  the  cost,  by  anything  that  might  be  done  in  reforesting  the  watershed' 
of  the  rivers  themselves.0 

In  like  manner  no  engineer  could  honestly  advise  lowering  in  height  by  a 
single  inch  the  levees  of  the  Mississippi,  because  of  any  possible  application  of 
forestry  to  the  watershed  of  that  stream.  And  again  he  could  not  advise  that 
forestry  development  would  lessen  in  any  degree  the  cost  of  improving  the  rivers 
for  low-water  navigation.  Engineers  fully  understand  their  responsibility  in 
these  matters.  But  great  engineering  projects  can  not  be  carried  out  without 
money,  and  the  people  will  not  give  the  money  unless  convinced  of  the  necessity 
and  wisdom  of  the  plan  proposed.  So  long  as  there  is  apparently  some  easier 
and  simpler  plan,  some  panacea,  no  matter  how  nebulous  or  unproven,  that 
offers  a  way  out  without  the  expenditure  of  so  much  cold  cash,  they  will  be 
backward  in  voting  money,  and  the  counsel  of  the  engineer  will  be  of  no  avail, 


0  Possibly  the  author  is  too  positive  in  this  opinion.  He  finds  that,  in  one  case 
at  least,  the  city  of  Williamsport,  Pa.,  reputable  engineers  have  advised  refor- 
estation of  mountain  slopes  as  a  protection  against  floods.  The  statement  of 
"  an  eminent  authority  "  was  cited  with  approval  to  the  effect  that  "  four-fifths 
of  the  precipitation  is  detained  by  the  surface  of  the  ground"  under  forest 
Cftver.  But  here,  as  in  all  these  assumptions,  the  rule  applies  only  to  the 
average  condition.  The  point  is  overlooked  that  in  periods  of  heavy  precipita- 
tion the  retentive  capacity  of  the  forest  bed  becomes  exhausted.  If  the  city  of 
Williamsport  is  relying  upon  this  advice  it  is  certainly  laying  up  for  itself  a 
season  of  repentance. 


FOREST  LANDS  FOB  THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  85 

Hence  the  complete  divorcement  of  forestry  from  any  connection  with  river 
regulation — so  far,  at  least,  as  its  effect  upon  the  cost  of  such  regulation  is  con- 
cerned— will  be  a  distinct  and  positive  gain  to  the  latter. 

In  the  second  place,  forestry  will  be  left  to  work  out  its  own  salvation  without 
any  reference  to  the  rivers.  Will  not  its  cause  be  promoted  by  this  divorce- 
ment? At  first  thought  it  may  seem  that  thereby  one  great  argument  for  for- 
estry is  lost ;  but  no  argument  can  be  of  value  in  the  long  run  that  is  not  based 
upon  truth,  and  the  disappointment  that  is  certain  to  result  in  the  fulfill- 
ment of  these  hopes  will  do  more  harm  than  good.  Forestry  does  not  need  any 
such  support.  It  stands  on  a  basis  of  its  own,  too  broad  and  too  sure  to  require 
any  extraneous  aid.  What  is  this  basis?  The  reply  may  be  given  in  the  beau- 
tifully appropriate  phrase  that  occurs  in  the  act  of  Congress  creating  the  first  of 
our  national  parks,  "  the  benefit  and  enjoyment  of  the  people."  In  the  matter 
of  benefits,  forests  are  necessary,  because  they  produce  the  most  important 
material  of  construction  known  to  man ;  even  iron  can  not  be  excepted.  From 
the  lead  pencil  to  the  mast  of  a  ship,  from  the  infant's  top  to  spacious  temples 
and  palaces,  it  enters  into  nearly  every  requirement  of  human  existence.  A 
large  portion  of  the  structures  for  human  habitation  are  built  of  it.  The  land 
transportation  of  the  world  is  closely  dependent  upon  it,  for  if  it  were  not  for 
the  railroad  tie  scarcely  a  car  could  run.  It  is  only  when  one  stops  to  think  a 
little  upon  the  unlimited  adaptability  of  wood  to  human  needs  that  its  trans- 
cendant  importance  is  borne  in  upon  him. 

In  the  matter  of  enjoyment,  no  other  work  of  nature  has  done  more  for  the 
uplifting  and  ennobling  of  the  mind  than  these  "  first  temples  "  of  God.  It 
requires  no  argument  to  enforce  this  assertion,  particularly  with  him  who  has 
been  reared  in  close  companionship  with  the  woods.  Sad,  indeed,  will  be  the 
day,  if  it  ever  comes,  when  the  people  are  deprived  of  this  source  of  healthful 
pleasure  for  which  no  adequate  substitute  can  ever  be  found. 

And  yet  this  supremely  important  resource  in  human  happiness  is  strictly 
limited,  and  the  visible  supply  is  fast  disappearing.  Statistics  fix  the  date, 
almost  as  confidently  as  an  astronomer  predicts  an  eclipse,  when  the  doomsday 
of  its  'final  disappearance  will  come  unless  something  is  done  to  prevent.  Most 
fortunately  this  material,  unlike  copper  or  iron  or  stone,  is  a  vegetable  product 
capable  of  self-renewal,  and  the  supply  can  be  kept  up  forever.  This  is  what 
gives  it  extreme  importance  to  forestry.  It  requires  no  dubious  support  from 
any  other  source.  It  fully  justifies  the  splendid  work  that  the  Forestry  Service 
is  doing  and  demonstrates  the  wisdom  of  the  farsighted  men  who  are  laying  the 
foundation  of  our  future  national  forests. 

Let  us  now  inquire  if  it  will  not  be  to  the  advantage  of  this  great  work  to  be 
absolutely  independent  of  any  connection  with  waterway  development.  Will  it 
not  be  better  in  every  way  for  forestry  if  it  is  promoted  solely  on  the  basis  of 
producing  trees  for  human  use  and  enjoyment,  and  not  at  all  for  any  supposed 
influence  upon  flow  of  streams?  Is  it  really  a  wise  move,  so  far  as  forestry  is 
concerned,  to  single  out  the  rugged  and  inaccessible  mountains  as  localities 
where  our  future  supply  of  timber  must  come  from?  The  availability  of  for- 
ests to  human  needs  depends  very  largely  upon  the  situation  in  which  they 
grow.  Few  people  understand  the  exceeding  importance  of  this  matter.  The 
converting  of  a  forest  tree  into  form  for  use  involves  two  distinct  processes,  the 
conversion  of  the  tree  into  lumber  or  other  product  and  its  transportation  to  the 
place  of  consumption.  The  cost  of  logging  operations  is  immensely  increased  by 
the  roughness  of  the  ground.  In  our  western  forests,  for  example,  it  requires  a 
higher  grade  of  skill,  commanding  higher  wages,  to  "  lay  "  a  tree  on  a  steep  hill- 
side than  on  even  ground.  The  losses  from  breakage  in  falling  are  much  higher, 
and  the  difficulty  and  expense  of  getting  the  logs  out  much  greater.  In  fa'ct,  the 
increase  of  cost  runs  all  the  way  from  $1  to  $10  per  1,000,  depending  upon  the 
situation.  Engineering  News  stated  the  case  very  forcibly  in  regard  to  the 
Appalachian  forests  (though  it  did  not  have  this  particular  thought  in  mind) 
when  it  said,  in  a  recent  issue,  that  "  the  cutting  off  of  forests  on  the  remote 
mountain  slopes  has  only  become  possible  with  the  high  price  of  lumber  that  has 
prevailed  for  ten  years  past."  This  increase  of  cost  represents  the  perpetual 
tax  that  the  public  must  pay  for  timber  from  these  regions  as  compared  with 
that  from  the  lowlands.  And  a  great  deal  of  it  can  never  be  gotten  out  at  all. 
The  poet's  "  gem  of  purest  ray  serene  "  was  not  more  lost  to  human  needs  than 
are  tens  of  thousands  of  noble  trees  in  the  rugged  fastnesses  of  our  mountains, 
east  and  west.  Benefit?  To  convert  them  into  lumber  will  cost  more  than  they 
are  worth.  Enjoyment?  Only  the  solitary  hunter  or  mountaineer  ever  sees 
them.  These  are  not  the  places  to  rear  up  forests  for  the  good  of  the  people. 


86  FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Consider  the  question  of  transportation  and  take  Chicago  as  being  practically 
on  the  meridian  through  the  center  of  population  of  the  country.  The  rate  on 
fir  from  the  Cascades  to  Chicago  is  55  cents  per  100.  or  $16.50  per  1,000  feet 
h.  in.  The  average  rate  from  the  Appalachian  forests  is  about  18  cents,  or 
about  $9  per  1.000  for  green  oak.  By  a  proper  distribution  of  our  forests  these 
rates  on  the  average  ought  to  be  brought  within  10  cents  per  100.  In  logging 
nnd  transportation  together,  the  country  will  tax  itself  on  the  average  not  less 
than  $10  per  1  000  for  whatever  supply  it  derives  from  these  mountain  forests 
as  compared  with  what  it  might  receive  from  forests  more  favorably  located. 

If  it  were  not  for  the  erroneous  assumption  that  forests  have  a  regulative 
effect  upon  the  flow  of  our  navigable  rivers,  would  not  the  policy  in  regard  to 
the  acquisition  of  hinds  for  forest  reserves  be  quite  different  from  that  now 
proposed?  If  Congress  were  to  vote,  say,  $10,000,000  at  the  next  session  to 
commence  the  establishment  of  national  forests  by  purchase,  would  it  not  be 
far  better  spent  in  lands  where  the  pine,  oak,  cherry,  and  ash  used  to  grow, 
in  locations  convenient  for  access  by  the  people  and  in  every  way  better  adapted 
to  their  needs?  States,  counties,  or  other  agencies  should  be  required  to  meet 
half  the  original  cost.  Even  if  the  total  cost  to  the  Government  were  several 
times  what  equal  areas  in  the  mountains  cost,  it  would  be  far  more  economical 
in  the  long  run.  There  is  an  abundance  of  land  in  nearly  all  the  States,  suit- 
able for  the  purpose,  that  can  be  had  at  not  excessive  cost.  In  New  England, 
for  example,  would  not  the  development  of  forests  in  the  lowlands,  where  in 
many  places  former  cultivation  has  been  abandoned,  be  far  better  than  to  buy 
up  the  difficult  slopes  of  the  White  Mountains?  Let  there  be  a  national  forest 
in  every  county  of  the  United  States  where  it  is  practicable  to  create  one.  Let 
its  location  be  carefully  chosen  so  that  its  product  may  be  manufactured  and 
shipped  with  the  smallest  cost  to  the  people,  and  serving  also  not  only  as  a 
pleasure  ground  but  as  a  stimulus  to  similar  work  by  .private  agencies. 

It  will  be  urged  that  these  mountain  lands  are  worth  more  for  forestry  than 
for  agriculture.  Very  true;  but  that  would  not  justify  their  purchase  if  the 
same  money  would  produce  a  better  result  elsewhere.  "  Never  buy  wh,at  you 
do  not  want  because  it  is  cheap."  Again,  it  may  be  said  that  here  is  our  only 
remaining  timber  supply  in  the  East,  and  it  must  be  saved.  Except  in  some 
possible  economy  by  the  more  judicious  cutting  under  government  control,  it  is 
not  apparent  how  a  forest  tree  that  has  attained  its  growth  is  going  to  render 
any  greater  good  to  humanity  by  being  saved  for  the  next  generation  than  by 
being  cut  for  this.  There  is  a  general  sentiment  current  in  these  later  years 
that  if  timber  is  cut  off  by  private  agencies  it  is  wasted;  but  does  it  not  find 
Its  way  into  common  use  just  the  same?  Not  as  completely,  perhaps,  but  still 
substantially  the  same.  Take  the  combination  of  the  Weyerhaeuser  Timber  Com- 
pany, considered  entirely  apart  from  its  economic  and  ethical  aspects  as  a  great 
trust  or  corporation,  and  solely  as  a  preserver  of  our  forests.  With  its  system 
of  fire  control,  its  policy  of  holding  its  timber  for  high  prices,  is  it  not  really 
conserving  the  timber  for  future  use?  To  speak  of  such  timber  as  being  ''  lost" 
to  the  people,  "  wasted,"  and  its  acquisition  as  a  "  looting  of  our  heritage,"  is 
as  disingenuous  as  it  is  untrue.  Will  its  lumber  cost  the  consumer  a  cent  more 
per  thousand  than  if  it  were  from  a  government  reserve?  It  is  a  wholly  gratui- 
tous assumption  that  our  timber  is  going  to  be  "  wasted  "  unless  it  is  ^placed 
under  government  control.  The  thing  of  prime  importance  is  to  get  new  forests 
started.  In  the  thirty  to  fifty  years  that  our  present  supply  will  last  new  for- 
ests should  be  brought  into  existence  all  over  the  country.  This  is  far  more 
important  than  to  buy  the  virgin  timber  of  the  Appalachians. 

Moreover,  it  seems  now  to  be  considered  that  the  virgin  lands  have  already 
risen  too  high  in  price  to  be  purchased  by  the  Government,  and  that  it  is  only 
the  second-growth  lands  that  can  be  economically  acquired.0  Be  that  as  it  may, 
It  is  certain  that  the  acquisition  of  such  of  these  lands  as  are  desirable  for  the 
strict  purposes  of  timber  production  will  be  greatly  facilitated  by  disabusing  the 
minds  of  the  owners  of  the  impression  so  diligently  fostered  of  late  that  the  very 
salvation  of  the  country  depends  upon  their  selling  out  to  the  Government.  Can 
anyone  doubt  that  the  present  course  will  add  vastly  to  the  purchase  price? 

Still  another  argument  that  may  be  urged  is  that  only  by  linking  the  forests 
with  the  rivers  in  a  way  to  establish  their  utility  in  maintaining  navigation  can 
the  constitutional  objection  to  the  acquisition  of  these  lands  be  overcome.  But 

0  Report  of  Secretary  of  Agriculture  on  Southern  Appalachian  and  White 
Mountain  watershed,  December,  1907,  pp.  8,  30,  35. 


FOREST  LANDS   FOR   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  87 

does  this  apply  to  mountain  forests  more  than  to  any  others?  It  is  incontest- 
ably  true  that  whatever  restraining  effect  forests  have  upon  run-off  is  greater 
upon  the  lowlands  than  upon  steep  mountain  sides.  This  legal  feature  of  the 
question  will  be  referred  to  further  on. 

EESERVOIBS    IN    THEIR   RELATION    TO   STREAM   FLOW. 

Under  this  heading  artificial  reservoirs  alone  are  included.  Natural  reser- 
voirs of  various  kinds  exist  nearly  everywhere  and  exert  a  profound  influence 
upon  stream  flow.  The  ground  is  the  most  important  of  these,  absorbing  on  the 
average  probably  one-third  of  the  total  rainfall.  Natural  lakes  are  great  regu- 
lators, the  St.  Lawrence  system  being  the  most  perfect  example.  Forests  are 
effective  reservoirs  at  certain  seasons.  Swamps  and  low-lying  grounds  along 
river  courses,  like  the  great  flood  basins  of  the  Sacramento  and  the  Mississippi, 
are,  in  their  natural  state,  enormous  reservoirs  which  greatly  reduce  the  flood 
flow  of  the  river  channels.  Snowdrifts,  particularly  the  great  drifts  of  the 
mountains,  are  splendid  reservoirs.  The  streams  themselves  have  immense 
storage  capacity ;  for  example,  the  Mississippi  within  levees  stores  at  least 
2,000,000,000,000  cubic  feet  of  water  from  Cairo  to  the  Gulf,  between  extreme 
high  and  low  water  stages.  All  these  reservoirs  and  many  of  less  importance 
are  ever  active  in  regulating  the  flow  of  streams.  Without  them  precipitation 
would  flow  off  as  fast  as  it  arrives  and  our  greatest  floods  would  be  magnified 
many  times. 

Here  we  are  considering  only  those  reservoirs  constructed  by  man  to  sup- 
plement and  extend  the  regulating  effect  of  nature's  reservoirs.  If  the  conclu- 
sions reached  in  the  first  section  of  this  paper  are  correct,  forests  can  not  be 
relied  upon  in  any  degree  to  help  solve  the  problems  of  high  and  low  water. 
Present  conditions  must  be  met  by  purely  artificial  means,  since  man  has  so  far 
discovered  no  way  of  controlling  the  climatic  conditions  which  govern  precipita- 
tion. He  can  not  "  stay  the  bottles  of  heaven  "  in  times  of  flood,  nor  open  them 
in  seasons  of  drought.  He  must  take  the  water  after  it  reaches  the  earth  and 
deal  with  it  the  best  he  can. 

The  artificial  reservoir  is  intended  to  attack  this  problem  at  its  source.  It 
catches  and  holds  back  the  water  in  the  near  vicinity  of  its  deposition,  instead 
of  waiting  until  it  gathers  into  the  rivers  and  then  building  huge  bulwarks  to 
contain  it  there  in  times  of  flood.  It  saves  the  stored-up  supply  and  gives  it  out 
in  the  low-water  season,  thereby  helping  navigation,  instead  of  dredging  and 
otherwise  treating  the  water  courses  to  increase  the  low-water  depth.  It  cor- 
rects one  of  the  greatest  deficiencies  of  nature  by  abolishing  inequalities  of 
stream  flow  and  converting  waste  into  utility.  Theoretically,  it  is  the  perfect 
plan.  It  has  always  appealed  to  the  imagination  of  laymen  and  professional 
alike.  It  has  often  been  resorted  to,  and  the  number  of  reservoirs  in  the  world 
is  very  great  and  constantly  increasing.  Hitherto  they  have  been  mainly  used 
for  power,  municipal  supply,  irrigation,  and  for  navigation  in  canals.  In  very 
few  instances  have  they  been  applied  to  improve  the  navigation  of  large  natural 
water  courses,  and  in  none,  so  far  as  the  author  is  aware,  for  the  exclusive  pur- 
pose of  preventing  floods. 

The  question  arises,  AVhy  are  they  not  regularly  applied  to  these  last- 
mentioned  purposes?  The  answer  may  at  once  be  given  that  in  the  general  case 
the  cost  is  greater  than  the  benefits  to  be  received.  This  element  of  cost  arises 
mainly  from  the  absence  of  good  sites  (including  dam  sites  as  well  as  holding 
basins)  and  also,  to  considerable  extent,  from  an  interference  with  the  purely 
artificial  conditions  growing  out  of  the  settlement  of  the  country. 

The  best  reservoir  site  is  a  natural  lake.  Such  a  site  is  already  covered  with 
water,  and  original  conditions  are  not  materially  changed.  Evaporation  is  not 
much  increased  by  the  necessary  enlargement.  Smaller  and  safer  dams  accom- 
plish a  given  storage  than  for  the  average  dry  site.  The  question  of  public 
health  involved  in  uncovering  large  areas  for  reservoir  beds  in  the  heated  por- 
tion of  the  year  is  less  serious.  Everything  makes  these  sites  the  most  advan- 
tageous that  can  be  found,  and  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a  rule  that  the  public 
good  requires  the  utilization  of  every  such  site  to  the  fullest  possible  extent.0 

°An  interesting  feature  of  these  natural  reservoirs  may  be  noted.  A  natural 
lake,  wholly  uncontrolled  at  its  outlet,  may  have  a  more  effective  control  of  the 
outflow  than  an  artificial  reservoir  of  equal  superficial  area  when  full,  though 
of  far  greater  capacity  between  high  and  low  water.  The  outflow  from  a  lake 
can  be  increased  only  by  storing  simultaneously  a  quantity  of  water  measured 


88  FOREST  LANDS  FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Except  in  a  few  cases,  dry  sites  are  deficient  in  these  advantages.  Greater 
areas  of  land  have  to  be  condemned,  and  larger  and  costlier  dams  are  required, 
with  vastly  greater  danger  in  case  of  accident.  Really  good  sites  are  not  a& 
abundant  as  one  might  wish,  and  the  problem  of  developing  storage  on  such 
sites  is  beset  with  difficulties  of  many  kinds  that  greatly  increase  the  cost. 

In  189T  the  author  made  a  careful  study  of  this  question  of  flood  control  by 
means  of  reservoirs,  in  connection  with  an  official  investigation  of  the  advisa- 
bility of  building  reservoirs  in  the  arid  regions.  His  view  of  the  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  any  general  application  of  such  a  system  is  quite  fully  stated  in  his 
report,0  and  the  following  extracts  are  directly  in  point : 

"  It  is  the  cost,  not  the  physical  difficulties,  which  stands  in  the  way.  It 
may  be  stated  that  as  a  general  rule  a  sufficient  amount  of  storage  can  he  arti- 
ficially created  in  the  valley  of  any  stream  to  rob  its  floods  of  their  destructive 
character ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  benefits  to  be  gained  will  not  ordinarily 
justify  the  cost.  The  reason  for  this  is  plain.  Floods  are  only  occasional  calamities 
at  worst.  Probably  on  the  majority  of  streams  destructive  floods  do  not  occur, 
on  the  average,  oftener  than  once  in  five  years.  Every  reservoir  built  for  the 
purpose  of  flood  protection  alone  would  mean  the  dedication  of  so  much  land  to- 
a  condition  of  permanent  overflow  in  order  that  three  or  four  times  as  much  might 
be  redeemed  from  occasional  overflow.  One  acre  permanently  inundated  to 
rescue  3  or  4  acres  from  inundation  of  a  few  weeks  once  in  three  or  four 
years,  and  this  at  a  great  cost,  could  not  be  considered  a  wise  proceeding,  no 
matter  how  practicable  it  might  be  from  engineering  considerations  alone.  The 
cost,  coupled  with  the  loss  of  so  much  land  to  industrial  uses,  would  be  far 
greater  than  that  of  levees  or  other  methods  of  flood  protection.  *  *  *  The 
construction  of  reservoirs  for  flood  protection  is  not,  therefore,  to  be  expected, 
except  where  the  reservoirs  are  to  serve  some  other  purpose  as  well." 

The  above  conclusions  are  still  as  applicable  as  they  were  when  written.  The 
subject  has  been  given  renewed  prominence  quite  recently  in  connection  with 
the  Ohio  River  floods,  but,  before  considering  this  particular  application,  atten- 
tion will  be  given  to  certain  reservoir  systems  that  have  been  proposed  else- 
where, and  particularly  to  one  already  built  and  put  in  operation  by  the  Gov- 
ernment and  which  will  be  referred  to  frequently  in  the  following  pages.  This 
is  the  system  at  the  headwaters  of  the  Mississippi — the  largest  artificial  reser- 
voir system  in  the  world. 

The  project  of  converting  the  more  important  of  the  numerous  lakes  around 
the  sources  of  the  Mississippi  and  its  tributaries  into  storage  reservoirs  as  an 
aid  to  navigation  was  originally  proposed  by  Gen.  G.  K.  Warren,  and  was  first 
put  into  definite  shape  by  Colonel  Farquhar,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers.  The 
plan  then  embraced  a  large  number  of  lakes  in  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin,  but 
only  five  sites  have  actually  been  improved.  The  dams  were  first  built  of 
timber  cribs,  but  have  recently  been  rebuilt  in  concrete.  The  combined  storage 
is  about  93,000,000,000  cubic  feet.  It  is  about  twice  the  mean  annual  run-off 
from  the  watershed,  and  the  system  is  probably  the  only  one,  except  the  Great 
Lakes,  which  equalizes  periodic  as  well  as  annual  fluctuations  of  flow.  That  is, 
it  carries  over  the  surplus  from  wet  years  to  help  out  in  dry  years,  and  its  utility 
Is,  therefore,  of  the  most  comprehensive  character.  The  cost  of  the  five  reser- 
voirs is  remarkably  low,  although  it  is  not  now  possible  to  tell  the  exact  cost  of 
the  present  structures  on  account  of  the  mixture  of  old  and  new  work ;  but  it 
probably  does  not  exceed  $750,000,  including  a  lock  in  the  Sandy  Lake  dam. 
This  is  only  $8  per  1,000,000  cubic  feet,  or  35  cents  per  acre-foot  on  the  basis 

by  a  rise  in  the  surface  equal  to  that  in  the  outlet  necessary  to  give  the  in- 
creased flow.  But  if  the  artificial  reservoir  has  reached  the  limit  of  its  allow- 
able filling,  the  outflow  must  be  made  equal  to  the  inflow.  If  this  limit  is 
reached  before  or  at  the  time  of  maximum  run-off,  then  a  quantity  equal  to 
this  run-off  must  be  let  out  of  the  reservoir.  This  contingency  can  never  happen 
in  a  natural  lake.  The  turning  point  where  outflow  and  inflow  balance  each 
other  is  aiways  after  the  crest  of  the  flood  has  passed — in  fact  at  the  time  when 
the  diminishing  inflow  and  increasing  outflow  balance  each  other  and  the  lake 
ceases  to  rise.  In  the  case  of  the  Yellowstone  Lake  (140  square  miles),  for 
example,  this  rise,  in  average  seasons  of  snow  melting,  continues  from  ten  days 
to  three  weeks  after  the  inflow  has  reached  its  maximum,  and  surrounding 
streams  have  subsided  materially  before  the  Yellowstone  River  (at  the  lake  out- 
let) ceases  to  rise. 
0  House  Document  No.  141,  Fifty-fifth  Congress,  second  session,  p.  46. 


FOREST  LANDS  FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.  89 

of  total  capacity.  It  would  be  about  twice  this  on  the  basis  of  the  mean  annual 
run-off  from  the  watersheds. 

A  large  portion  of  the  original  project  has  been  abandoned  because  public 
sentiment  did  not  support  its  continuance.  The  author  has  always  regretted 
this  backward  step,  as  he  believes  in  developing  to  the  fullest  extent  the  excep- 
tional opportunities  here  offered  for  the  storage  of  water.  The  available  res- 
ervoir sites  which  could  be  cheaply  improved  in  Minnesota  and  Wisconsin  are 
sufficient  to  control,  absolutely  the  floods  of  the  Mississippi  within  the  danger 
line  for  a  long  distance  below  St.  Paul  and  to  improve  the  navigation  of  the 
upper  river  very  materially,  while  their  value  for  industrial  purposes  is  almost 
beyond  estimate. 

In  spite  of  the  great  and  obvious  advantages  of  this  system,  it  has  not  yet 
received  the  popular  approval  that  might  be  expected  of  it.  In  fact,  about 
three  years  ago  there  arose  a  widespread  sentiment  in  the  community  around 
the  reservoirs  that  the  system  was,  on  the  whole,  injurious,  that  its  disadvan- 
tages far  offset  its  advantages,  and  a  strong  movement  was  organized  to  have 
it  abolished  altogether.  For  the  purpose  of  investigating  this  matter  a  board 
of  engineers  was  appointed,  of  which  the  author  was  a  member.  The  board 
found  that  there  was  a  general  belief  among  the  people  below  the  dams  that 
they  actually  increased  the  floods,  while  the  people  above  complained  bitterly 
of  the  back  waters  caused  throughout  that  low  country  by  filling  the  reservoirs 
so  full.  The  water  powers  immediately  below  the  dams  complained  that  they 
were  not  getting  even  the  normal  flow  of  the  stream,  which  was  the  case. 
Navigation  interests  below  St.  Paul  have  always  been  lukewarm  in  regard  to 
the  beneficial  effects  of  the  reservoirs,  and  the  board  was  able  to  find  only  one- 
steamboat  captain  who  would  make  a  positive  statement  that  the  boating  inter- 
ests derived  any  particular  benefit  from  them. 

Some  curious  results  developed  in  this  investigation.  It  was  found  thaV 
great  as  the  reservoirs  are,  conditions  may  arise  in  times  of  excessive  precipi- 
tation that  will  compel  them  to  discharge  a  greater  quantity  of  water  than 
would  flow  from  the  lakes  in  their  natural  condition.  That  is,  they  might 
actually  operate  to  increase  the  floods  if  they  should  fill  to  their  limit  during 
a  period  of  excessive  precipitation.  This  very  contingency  nearly  happened  in 
the  season  of  1905. 

In  like  manner,  during  the  period  of  lowest  water,  viz,  in  midwinter,  the 
reservoir  gates  are  closed  down  to  about  400  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  the 
great  water  powers,  like  those  at  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony,  are  even  worse  off 
than  in  a  state  of  nature;  but  this  drawback  is  not  so  great  as  might  be 
thought,  because  the  powers  are  able  to  utilize  most  of  the  storage  when  it 
comes  during  the  period  of  navigation. 

Such  are  some  of  the  complications  and  drawbacks  which  are  encountered 
in  this  reservoir  system  and  which  will  surely  be  met  in  a  system  built  up 
under  less  favorable  natural  conditions. 

Nevertheless,  the  board  found  that  the  system  was  in  itself  a  very  great 
benefit  and  that  the  lack  of  appreciation  of  its  advantages  was  for  the  most 
part  due  to  ignorance  of  what  they  actually  were.  At  the  public  hearing  the- 
opposition  fell  to  pieces  by  the  mere  force  of  a  better  understanding,  and  it  is 
safe  to  say  that  the  system  will  never  be  abandoned,  but  will  be  extended  along 
the  lines  of  the  original  project.0 

The  United  States  Geological  Survey  has  recently  proposed  quite  an  exten- 
sive reservoir  system  for  the  Sacramento  basin,  similar  in  principle,  though 
smaller  in  extent,  to  that  of  the  proposed  Ohio  system.  The  flood  problem  of 
the  Sacramento  River  is  the  most  difficult  in  the  United  States  in  proportion  to 
its  magnitude.  In  fact,  it  seems  as  if  it  will  prove  impossible  to  convey  the- 
extreme  floods  of  that  river  to  the  sea  without  extensive  overflow  of  the  bottom 
lands  along  its  course.  The  proposition  to  control  the  floods  to  some  extent  by 
means  of  reservoirs  was  elaborately  set  forth  in  the  paper  by  Messrs.  Clapp, 
Murphy,  and  Martin,  previously  referred  to.  The  subject  had  already  been 
considered  by  the  commission  of  engineers  appointed  by  the  State  of  California 
in  1904  to  devise  a  plan  of  flood  relief.  The  commission  reported  that,  while- 
any  help  from  such  a  source  must,  of  course,  be  welcome  in  solving  the  prob- 
lem, it  was  very  doubtful  if  such  aid  would  be  of  sufficient  importance  to 

a  The  report  of  this  board  contains  exhaustive  data  upon  the  system  and  its- 
operation.  It  may  be  seen  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  for 
1906,  p.  1443.  (Appendix  AA  published  separately  in  pamphlet  form.) 


DO  FOREST  LANDS  FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

justify  giving  it  much  weight."  In  discussing  the  paper  above  referred  to,  the 
author  stated  that,  while  he  had  never  visited  the  sites  in  question,  it  was  his 
opinion  that,  as  to  most  of  them,  it  would  not  be  possible  to  realize  over  one- 
fourth  to  one-third  of  the  benefits  claimed,  and  he  based  his  opinion  on  the 
published  records  of  the  flood  of  1907,  which  was  the  greatest  in  the  history 
of  the  river.  George  L.  Dillman,  member  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers, 
in  discussing  the  paper,  flatly  pronounced  the  whole  scheme  impracticable,  and 
gave  his  reasons  in  detail  for  this  conclusion.21  Among  thenx,  he  cited  in  one  case 
the  great  value  of  the  lands  to  be  flooded  by  the  reservoirs,  which  he  claimed 
were  altogether  more  important  for  agriculture  than  for  any  diminution  of  flood- 
ing which  the  storage  might  cause  in  the  valley  below.  In  another  case  he  cited 
the  difficulty,  which  always  suggests  itself  to  an  engineer  in  considering  the  sub- 
ject, of  timing  the  operations  of  the  reservoirs  so  as  to  combine  their  effects  to 
the  best  advantage,  and  particularly  in  keeping  them  empty  in  periods  of  pro- 
longed precipitation,  so  that  their  capacity  may  be  available  at  the  critical  mo- 
ment. Other  obstacles  were  pointed  out,  and  the  whole  discussion  presents 
^another  instance  of  the  practical  difficulties  that  stand  in  the  way  of  any  com- 
prehensive reservoir  scheme  for  controlling  floods. 

In  1903  the  great  flood  of  the  Kaw  River  brought  up  the  reservoir  question 
again.  Ex-Senator  Burton,  of  Kansas,  advocated  the  plan  very  urgently, 
stating  in  a  speech  at  Kansas  City  that  he  "  would  have  tens  of  thousands  of 
reservoirs,  beginning  at  the  headwaters  of  the  stream  and  coming  right  down." 
A  board  of  engineer  officers  was  appointed  to  investigate  the  practicability  of 
providing  against  future  disasters  such  as  this  flood  had  caused.  The  reservoir 
idea  had  made  so  deep  an  impression  upon  the  public  mind  that  a  specific  con- 
sideration of  that  feature  of  the  problem  was  requested.  In  its  report c  the 
board  found  adversely  to  the  scheme,  on  the  ground  that  its  great  cost,  con- 
servatively estimated  at  $11,000,000,  and  the  annual  loss  from  the  withdrawal 
of  the  necessary  lands  from  occupancy,  conservatively  estimated  at  nearly 
$600,000,  would  not  be  justified  on  the  ground  of  flood  protection  alone.  Owing 
to  the  character  of  the  country,  this  last  consideration  was  particularly  strong. 
The  only  real  justification  of  so  extensive  a  system  in  a  country  so  largely 
devoted  to  agriculture  would  be  its  use  in  irrigation  and  power,  and,  if  it  be- 
came necessary  for  these  purposes,  doubtless  a  portion  of  it  would  be  built. 

The  most  elaborate  study  of  this  subject  ever  undertaken  until  very  recently 
•was  made  by  the  French  Government,  to  determine  whether  reservoirs  could 
be  utilized  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  great  disasters  as  the  floods  of 
1856  in  the  valleys  of  the  Rhone  and  other  streams.  A  full  resume  of  these 
studies  is  given  in  the  author's  report,  already  referred  to,  on  "  Reservoir  Sites  in 
the  Arid  Regions."  The  conclusion  was  the  same  that  has  been 'reached  in  every 
similar  investigation.  An  interesting  feature  of  the  system  then  considered 
was  that  the  reservoirs  were  to  have  sluices  permanently  open,  so  that  it  would 
not  be  possible  to  close  them  entirely.  They  would  operate,  it  was  expected,  to 
hold  back  a  definite  percentage  of  flood  discharge — enough  to  keep  the  floods 
below  the  dams  within  safe  limits.  They  would  thus  act  automatically,  just  as 
forests  are  supposed  to  do.  This  was  all  right  so  far  as  the  individual  tributaries 
were  concerned,  but  it  was  found,  when  the  possible  effect  upon  tributary  com- 
bination in  the  main  stream  was  considered,  that  by  holding  back  earlier  por- 
tions of  freshets  and  prolonging  their  run-off,  they  might  actually  swell  the 
combination  in  the  lower  courses  of  the  main  stream. 

Similar  studies  have  frequently  been  made  in  all  the  principal  countries  of 
Europe,  and  in  none  of  them,  so  far  as  the  author  is  aware,  has  such  a  project 
•on  a  large  scale  ever  been  undertaken  or  even  favorably  considered. 

Coming  now  to  the  Ohio  River,  the  immense  importance  of  that  stream  as  a 
factor  in  the  floods  of  the  Mississippi  makes  the  regulation  of  its  flow  a  matter 
of  greater  moment  than  that  of  any  other  stream.  The  project  of  controlling 
the  run-off  of  its  watershed  by  means  of  reservoirs  was  urged  very  forcibly 
more  than  sixty  years  ago  by  Col.  Charles  Ellet.  The  subject  has  often  been 
considered  since,  both  in  private  and  official  investigations.  The  conclusion  has 
invariably  been  that,  great  as  the  benefits  of  such  a  system  would  be  if  in  exist- 
ence, the  cost  of  bringing  it  into  existence  would  be  out  of  all  proportion  to 
such  benefits. 

"Report  Commissioner  of  Public  Works,  State  of  California,  for  1905. 

&  Proceedings  American  Society  Civil  Engineers,  May,  1908,  p.  464. 

c  Senate  Document  160,  Fifty-eighth  Congress,  second  session,  pp.  14-17. 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  91 

The  scheme  has  recently  been  revived  in  a  more  attractive  form,  with  data 
not  hitherto  available,  and  at  a  time  when  a  period  of  heavy  floods  and  much 
loss  therefrom  has  turned  public  attention  strongly  upon  the  subject.  More- 
over, it  comes  supported  by  a  comparatively  new  element  in  its  favor — the  vast 
expansion  of  water-power  development  made  possible  by  the  electric  trans- 
mission of  energy.  The  new  presentation  of  the  project  is  by  M.  O.  Leighton, 
Assoc.  M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  Chief  Hydrographer,  United  States  Geological  Survey, 
,and  is  understood  to  bear  the  approval  of  both  the  Interior  and  Agricultural 
Departments.0  Mr.  Leighton  does  not  claim  that  his  presentation  is  at  all  final 
or  complete,  but  is  rather  a  "  statement  of  possibilities  "  which  he  believes  are 
sufficiently  promising  to  justify  the  Government  in  giving  the  scheme  thorough 
investigation  before  further  extensive  steps  are  taken  on  present  lines  in  the 
matter  of  flood  control  and  channel  improvement  in  the  main  rivers  of  the  basin. 
Although  an  estimate  of  cost  is  submitted  and  certain  conclusions  are  based 
thereon,  it  is  stated  that  the  data  are  too  meager  to  give  much  confidence  therein. 
Subject  to  these  qualifications,  the  system,  as  set  forth  in  Mr.  Leighton's  paper, 
embraces  reservoirs  on  nearly  all  the  tributaries  of  the  Ohio;  the  total  cost  is 
estimated  at  .$125,000,000;  the  income  from  resulting  water  power  at  $20  per 
horsepower,  and  a  certain  computed  lowering  of  flood  heights  on  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi  rivers,  and  a  corresponding  increase  in  low  stages,  are  given.  The 
full  details  of  the  scheme  are  set  forth  in  quite  elaborate  form.  So  far  as  the 
present  criticism  is  concerned,  the  practicability  of  finding  the  necessary  sites 
will  be  accepted,  and  only  the  estimate  of  costs  and  revenues  and  the  deductions 
.as  to  benefits  will  be  called  into  question. 

In  their  effect  upon  floods,  admitting  that  all  the  reservoirs  proposed  can  be 
built,  the  result  must  fall  short  of  the  claims  put  forth.  If  built  at  all,  they 
must  be  built,  as  will  be  shown  later,  primarily  for  power  development.  It  will 
never  be  possible,  until  science  can  forecast  the  weather  more  perfectly  than  it 
is  yet  able  to  do,  to  regulate  reservoirs  for  the  maximum  benefit  of  both  pur- 
poses. This  consideration  is  sometimes  made  light  of,  but  nevertheless  it  is  one 
of  real  importance.  For  industrial  purposes  the  reservoirs  should  be  full  be- 
fore the  rainy  season  ends;  for  flood  protection  they  should  be  so  far  empty 
that  they  may  be  able  to  hold  back  any  flood-producing  storm  that  is  likely  to 
•come.  While,  doubtless,  in  a  majority  of  years  a  middle  course  could  be  pur- 
sued that  would  not  involve  much  risk  on  the  flood  side  of  the  question  nor 
much  loss  on  the  power  side,  yet  there  would  surely  come  exceptional  seasons — 
the  seasons  of  flood-producing  rains  or  the  seasons  of  great  drought — when  the 
reservoirs  would  be  caught  too  full  on  the  one  hand  or  too  empty  on  the  other. 
Their  full  calculated  capacity  would  not  then  be  available  for  either  purpose, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  conclude  that  this  would  not  happen  frequently.  In  partic- 
ular, if  the  reservoirs  are  really  operated  to  prevent  floods,  it  must  often  happen 
that  dry  weather  will  find  them  only  partially  filled,  and  that  their  full  capac- 
ity will  not  be  available  either  for  power  or  navigation.  This  would  not  apply, 
of  course,  to  a  reservoir  great  enough  to  store  all  the  run-off  from  its  watershed 
in  the  greatest  known  flood,  unless  considerable  storage  were  left  over  from 
previous  years — as  is  often  done  in  the  upper  Mississippi  reservoirs.  Mr. 
Leighton's  estimates  are  based  upon  the  mean  discharge  of  the  streams,  which 
is,  of  course,  greatly  exceeded,  possibly  doubled,  in  very  wet  years.  In  any  case 
it  would  seem  to  be  necessary  to  hold  ample  capacity  in  the  reservoirs  as  late 
as  the  end  of  March  each  year  to  provide  for  possible  emergencies;  but  if  this 
is  done  there  will  be  many  years  when  the  reservoirs  will  not  fill. 

An  important  consideration  in  the  use  of  the  reservoirs  for  flood  control  is 
that  of  a  proper  combination  of  their  outflow.  To  anyone  who  will  try  to  figure 
out  how  this  can  be  accomplished  over  a  watershed  of  such  vast  extent,  with 
storms  arriving  at  different  times  in  the  various  portions,  with  no  way  of  telling 
when,  where,  or  with  what  intensity  they  will  arrive,  with  the  varying  dis- 
tances of  the  different  reservoirs  from  those  points  where  flood  control  is  par- 
ticularly important,  the  problem  seems  almost  impossible — that  is,  impossible  to 
realize  the  full  effect  based  upon  the  aggregate  capacity  of  the  system.  It  is 
understood  that  Mr.  Leighton  has  endeavored  to  do  this,  but  it  would  be  inter- 
esting to  see  the  application  to  some  of  the  great  floods  that  might  be  designated. 


°The  author  has  seen  the  description  of  the  proposed  system  only  as  pub- 
lished in  Engineering  News,  May  7,  1908.  He  has  had  some  correspondence 
with  Mr.  Leighton,  and  is  under  great  obligation  to  him  for  a  complete  set  of 
topographic  sheets  showing  the  various  reservoir  sites. 


92  FOREST   LANDS   FOB  THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

For  example,  in  the  flood  of  1907,  which  reached  its  maximum  at  Cincinnati  and 
Pittsburg  about  the  same  time,  no  amount  of  holding  back  of  the  storm  water 
on  the  upper  Ohio  at  that  time  would  have  helped  the  situation  at  Cincinnati 
at  all. 

Another  important  consideration  in  the  effect  of  these  reservoirs,  as  they 
would  have  to  be  operated  to  prevent  floods,  is  the  great  change  that  takes  place 
in  a  flood  wave  as  it  propagates  itself  down  stream.  The  author  is  unable  to 
tell  from  Mr.  Leighton's  paper  to  what  extent  he  has  considered  it.  The  paper 
itself  seems  to  indicate  that  the  discharge  held  back  by  a  particular  reservoir 
produces  a  corresponding  volumetric  effect  (not  gauge  effect,  of  course)  at  all 
points  below,  after  making  a  due  allowance  of  time  for  the  transmission  of  the 
wave.  This  would  be  an  erroneous  conclusion.  For  example,  a  wave  that 
might  rise  at  Pittsburg  from  100,000  cubic  feet  per  second  to  150,000  a  day  later 
and  to  200,000  the  next  day,  and  then  fall  at  a  corresponding  rate,  would  not 
at  any  point  below  produce  a  maximum  increase  of  100,000  second- feet ;  and  the 
farther  away  the  point  considered  the  less  would  be  the  increase.  At  Cairo, 
nearly  1,000  miles  below,  the  same  wave  would  take  a  much  longer  time  in  pass- 
ing, probably  not  less  than  a  week,  and  the  maximum  increase  would  probably 
not  be  more  than  25,000  second-feet.  This  is  merely  a  general  illustraflon,  for 
exact  data  on  the  subject  are  not  available.  The  problem  is  of  such  complexity 
that  nothing  but  the  results  of  long  experience  could  establish  a  rule  as  to  what 
might  be  expected  in  any  given  case;  but  it  can  be  stated  with  certainty  that 
the  diminution  of  discharge  at  any  considerable  distance  below  the  reservoirs 
for  a  given  time  would  never,  be  as  great  as  the  amount  held  back  by  the  reser- 
voirs in  the  same  length  of  time,  and  that  the  quicker  and  the  higher  the  flood 
the  smaller  the  relative  effect  at  all  points  below.  Tt  is  only  when  such  wave 
elimination  merges  into  a  constant  quantity,  continuing  for  a  considerable  time, 
that  the  full  effect  of  a  reservoir  would  be  experienced  at  any  point  below. 
This,  in  fact,  is  what  would  actually  happen  in  the  contrary  case  of  the  low- 
water  season  when  the  reservoir  discharge  is  kept  up  for  a  long  time. 

Still  another  feature  in  the  high-water  effect  of  such  reservoirs  is  the  demand 
for  water  for  power  at  all  times.  If  there  should  ever  result  any  really  general 
use  for  all  this  water,  as  is  predicted,  then  the  consumption  for  power  would 
make  a  considerable  river  in  itself.  Now,  this  much  can  not  be  shut  off  in  any 
case.  Street  cars  and  shops  must  run  and  houses  must  be  lighted,  whether  the 
flood  is  ruining  the  lowlands  or  not.  An  example  of  this  occurred  in  1905  on 
the  upper  Mississippi,  where  the  outflow  from  the  upper  dams  was  cut  down  to 
a  minimum  to  reduce  the  flood  in  the  valley  at  Aitkin,  which  was  then  being 
overflowed  by  the  river.  The  mill  at  Grand  Rapids,  just  below  the  reservoirs, 
made  a  strenuous  protest,  and  even  threatened  legal  proceedings  to  compel  the 
release  of  the  full  normal  flow  of  the  river. 

Considering  all  the  foregoing  features  of  the  operation  of  the  proposed  sys- 
tem, even  if  every  reservoir  were  built  with  the  full  estimated  capacity,  it 
would  be  extremely  fortunate  if  75  per  cent  of  the  predicted  results,  either  in 
flood  protection  or  in  aid  of  navigation,  could  be  realized. 

It  is  in  the  matter  of  cost,  however,  that  the  weak  point  of  Mr.  Leighton's 
•system  appears.  Judged  by  any  reasonable  .standard,  his  estimates  are  hope- 
lessly wide  of  the  mark.  The  method  itself  of  getting  at  a  basis  of  cost  is  inad- 
missible. For  example,  in  determining  a  unit  of  cost  for  that  class  of  reser- 
voirs which  embrace  the  greater  portion  of  the  total  storage,  the  figures  for  nine 
reservoirs  are  taken,  counting  as  one  the  whole  upper  Mississippi1  system.  Only 
the  Mississippi  system  has  been  built ;  two  others  are  under  construction  and  six 
are  merely  projected.  In  accordance  with  almost  universal  experience,  and  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  great  advance  in  prices  of  all  kinds  since  these  estimates 
were  prepared,  it  must  be  expected  that  these  works,  if  ever  built,  will  cost 
from  25  to  50  per  cent  more  than  the  estimates.  Three  of  the  projected  dams 
are  of  the  relatively  cheap  rock-fill  construction,  which  would  be  inapplicable 
to  most  of  the  Ohio  dams  from  considerations  of  safety. 

The  controlling  element,  however,  in  the  unit  estimate  is  the  Mississippi 
system,  whose  capacity  is  nearly  one-third  of  the  whole  group  considered  and 
whose  unit  cost  is  only  about  one-seventh  of  the  average  cost  of  the  others. 
The  use  of  the  Mississippi  reservoirs  in  any  way  as  a  basis  of  estimate  for  the 
Ohio  system  is  wholly  inadmissible,  because  of  the  dissimilarity  of  sites.  The 
Ohio  sites,  with  one  exception,  are  dry  sites — totally  different  from  the  lakes 
of  Minnesota.  Even  the  latter  reservoirs  could  not  now  be  built  for  three 
times  what  they  have  actually  cost  the  Government.  The  flowage  lands  em- 
braced about  80,000  acres,  which  were  nearly  all  reserved  while  yet  belonging 


FOREST   LANDS  FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  93 

to  the  Government.  A  few  recent  purchases  of  additional  lauds  found  necessary, 
and  the  experience  now  being  met  in  acquiring  the  flowage  rights  for  a  reser- 
voir at  Gull  Lake,  show  that  if  these  lands  were  to  be  bought  to-day  they  would 
cost  from  $10  to  $25  per  acre.  The  right  of  way  alone  would  now  cost  twice  as 
much  as  the  dams. 

Compare  any  one  of  these  structures — Leech  Lake,  for  example — with  a 
representative  masonry  dam  like  the  Cheesman  dam  on  the  South  Fork  of  the 
South  Platte  River  above  Denver,  Colo.  The  author  is  familiar  with  both 
sites  and  once  submitted  a  plan  and  estimate  for  a  structure  on  the  Cheesman 
site  almost  exactly  like  the  one  built.  Lake  Cheesman  is  a  more  favorable  site 
than  most  of  those  on  the  Ohio  system,  for,  although  its  capacity  is  not  as 
great  as  some,  the  dam  site  is  exceptionally  advantageous,  one  of  the  most  per- 
fect in  nature — a  very  narrow  gorge  in  solid  granite,  with  a  natural  spillway 
already  provided.  In  several  of  the  Ohio  sites  entire  towns  will  have  to  be 
removed,  important  railroads  will  have  to  be  relocated,  a  few  mineral  proper- 
ties will  be  destroyed,  and,  in  nearly  all,  road  systems  will  be  seriously  dis- 
arranged. None  of  these  conditions  were  encountered  to  anything  like  the  same 
extent  in  the  Cheesman  site.  Undoubtedly  its  unit  cost,  which  is  estimated  at 
about  $250  per  1,000,000  cubic  feet,  was  as  low  as  can  be  possibly  realized  on  the 
Ohio  system  as  a  whole.  Compare  this  with  less  than  $5  for  Leech  Lake  or  $8 
for  the  whole  Mississippi  system. 

A  recent  example  of  projected  storage  is  that  presented  by  the  late  George 
Rafter,  M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  for  the  Genesee  River  near  Portage,  N.  Y.  Owing 
to  the  moderate  height  of  dam  (apparently  less  than  150  feet)  and  the  large 
capacity  of  reservoir  (15,000,000,000  cubic  feet),  this  is  believed  to  compare 
favorably  as  to  unit  cost  with  the  Ohio  system.  The  estimate  was  $216  per 
1,000,000  cubic  feet.  If  it  were  to  be  built  under  the  present  conditions  of  the 
market,  it  would  doubtless  cost  $250.  It  is  understood  that  later  investigations 
have  shown  that  Mr.  Rafter's  estimate  is  only  one-half  large  enough. 

In  1895  the  author  made  an  extensive  examination  of  storage  possibilities 
in  Ohio,  near  the  divide  between  Lake  Erie  and  the  Ohio  River,  for  the  purpose 
of  providing  a  water  supply  for  certain  projected  canals.  He  prepared  estimates 
for  two  sites  on  the  head  waters  of  the  Cnyahoga,  for  one  site  at  the  head  of 
the  Scioto,  and  for  one  at  the  head  of  the  Great  Miami.  The  estimates  were 
based  upon  actual  surveys  and  are  given  in  detail  in  the  report  upon  the  sub- 
ject.0 The  type  of  construction  was  not  expensive.  The  total  capacity  was 
11,000,000,000  cubic  feet  and  the  unit  cost  $300.  To-day  it  would  be  at  least 
$350. 

Most  of  the  proposed  sites  for  the  Ohio  reservoirs  are  not  advantageous  sites 
The  topography  of  the  country  is  unfavorable.  The  sites  are  not  compact 
basins,  like  those  occupied  by  lakes  or  ponds  or  mountain  meadows,  but  are, 
for  the  most  part,  trunk  valleys  with  numerous  tributaries,  nearly  all  of  them 
quite  narrow.  They  may  be  roughly  compared  to  the  form  of  the  hand  with  the 
fingers  outspread,  the  dam  occupying  the  position  of  the  wrist.  The  ends  of  the 
fingers  are  frequently  many  miles  from  each  other  and  from  the  dam.  Numer- 
ous villages  occupy  the  valleys.  The  road  systems  of  the  local  communities 
traverse  them.  The  disadvantage  that  will  result  to  public  travel  by  forcing 
it  out  of  these  natural  routes  over  the  hills  and  around  the  ends  of  the  fingers 
will  be  very  great.  The  lands  lying  between  the  fingers,  in  some  instances,  will 
be  so  far  cut  off  from  convenient  access  that  their  value  will  be  much  impaired, 
and  damages  will  have  to  be  paid  on  that  account.  In  several  instances  the 
necessary  changes  in  railroad  alignment  in  the  hilly  country  will  be  extremely 
costly,  if  not  impracticable.  A  great  many  cemeteries  will  have  to  be  removed, 
which  means  not  only  the  cost  of  removal,  but  extensive  purchase  of  lands  out- 
side. Such  drawbacks  are,  of  course,  encountered  in  all  similar  work,  but  they 
are  excessive  in  these  sites.  They  are  mentioned  solely  from  their  relation  to 
the  question  of  cost.  No  one  can  examine  the  maps  of  these  sites  and  not  be 
convinced  that  the  cost  of  right  of  way  and  damages  alone  will  considerably 
exceed  Mr.  Leighton's  estimate  of  the  entire  cost  of  the  system. 

An  element  affecting  cost  is  that  of  safety.  Owing  to  the  situation  of  many 
of  these  proposed  reservoirs  the  results  of  failure  of  the  dams  would  be  so 
appalling  that  no  chances  can  be  taken.  The  structures  can  be  made  safe,  of 
course  (except  against  earthquakes),  but  it  will  cost  money.  Nothing  short  of 
the  highest  type  of  construction — masonry  for  all  the  larger  dams — can  be  con- 
sidered. Mr.  Leighton  has  cited  certain  dams  upon  the  integrity  of  which  great 


0  House  Document  278,  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  first  session,  pp.  78,  83,  86. 


94  FOREST  LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

interests  depend  as  evidence  of  the  confidence  of  engineers  in  these  structures, 
but  if  he  will  apply  their  costs,  particularly  those  of  important  structures  in 
Europe, 'to  his  proposed  system  the  money  value  of  safety  will  mount  up  to  a 
prodigious  figure." 

A  feature  of  this  question  of  safety  often  overlooked  is  the  depreciation  of 
the  market  value  of  property,  due  to  its  location  below  a  dam,  where  failure 
of  the  dam  would  mean  a  disaster  of  great  magnitude.  However  safe  the  struc- 
ture may  be  many  people  would  not  purchase  property  below  it,  and  its  market 
would  be  correspondingly  diminished.  While  such  loss  can  hardly  be  made  a 
subject  for  damages,  it  is  a  real  loss  to  the  owners. 

These  reservoirs  being  built  for  flood  protection,  the  sluices  must  be  very 
large,  so  that  at  times  they  can  be  discharged  practically  as  fast  as  the  water 
runs  in.  This  will  be  necessary  during  periods  of  prolonged  precipitation  in 
order  to  keep  the  reservoirs  from  filling  too  full  before  the  danger  is  past. 
This  detail  of  construction  will  add  largely  to  the  cost. 

Taking  everything  into  consideration  on  the  most  liberal  basis,  it  is  evident 
that  this  system  can  not  be  built  for  less  than  $250  per  1,000,000  cubic  feet. 
The  probable  increase  in  the  value  of  property  to  be  condemned  before  the 
system  could  be  built  and  the  present  scale  of  prices  of  labor  and  material 
make  this  figure  a  minimum.  This  would  swell  the  cost  of  the  whole  system 
to  over  four  times  Mr.  Leighton's  estimate,  or  over  half  a  billion  dollars.* 

This  is  not  all,  however.  It  appears  that  the  complete  development  of  the 
reservoir  system  as  proposed  will  take  from  industrial  use  probably  1,500,000 
acres  of  land,  including  the  lands  actually  overflowed,  the  margins  subject  to 
damages,  and  sites  for  the  dams  and  various  structures  appurtenant  thereto. 
These  lands  will  be  in  large  part,  by  the  very  fact  that  they  lie  in  valleys 
suitable  for  storage  grounds,  the  best  lands  in  the  localities.  Sooner  or  later 
they  are  bound  to  come  into  agricultural  use,  and  with  proper  cultivation  their 
annual  net-revenue  value  will  be  at  least  $5. per  acre.  If  utilized  for  forest 
culture  they  ought  to  yield  500  feet  board  measure  of  lumber  and  1  cord  of  wood 
annually  per  acre.  The  value  of  the  land  for  this  purpose  ought  to  be  as  great 
as  the  figures  just  given.  It  thus  appears  that  the  occupancy  of  these  lands  for 
reservoir  purposes  will  take  from  the  community  an  annual  product  of  at  least 
$7,500,000  worth,  and  probably  more. 

The  reservoirs  will  store  about  2,150,000,000,000  cubic  feet  of  water.  Assume 
that  this  can  all  be  utilized  for  water  power,  with  the  average  head  of  200  feet, 
giving  theoretically  about  1,000,000  horsepower  per  year,  or  1,280,000  horse- 
power at  80  per  cent  efficiency.  At  $5  per  horsepower  (the  bnsis  for  this  figure 
will  presently  be  considered),  the  revenue  from  water  power  will  be  $6,400,000, 
which  falls  short  of  the  loss  resulting  from  withholding  the  sites  from  pro- 
ductive use.0 

°  The  recent  failure  of  the  Hauser  Lake  Dam,  on  the  Missouri  River,  near 
Helena,  Mont.,  is  a  good  illustration  of  how  the  unexpected  may  happen.  Here 
was  a  dam  built  of  steel  and  concrete,  two  materials  whose  properties  are  thor- 
oughly understood.  The  case  was  one  which  "  ordinary  engineering  "  might  be 
expected  to  hsindle  successfully.  The  public  had  reason  to  feel  confidence  in  the 
structure.  Yet  "  it  fell,  and  great  was  the  fall  thereof,"  not  only  in  the  total 
wreckage  of  the  dam,  but  in  the  losses  caused  along  the  valley  below. 

The  accident  affords  also  another  illustration  of  the  omnivorous  claims  put 
forward  in  these  days  in  the  supposed  interests  of  forestry.  The  disaster  was 
promptly  cited  as  an  example  of  the  havoc  wrought  by  floods  in  a  country  with- 
out forests.  The  normal  flood  discharge  of  the  Missouri  at  this  point  is  20,000 
cubic  feet  per  second ;  for  1907  it  was  26,000  cubic  feet ;  the  maximum  on  record 
is  about  50,000  cubic  feet.  At  the  time  of  the  accident  the  discharge  was  about 
7,000  cubic  feet. 

6  Recent  examinations  of  certain  sites,  embracing  nearly  70  per  cent  of  the 
proposed  Monongahela  storage,  indicate  that  the  whole  Ohio  system  will  cost 
at  lenst  a  billion  dollars,  and  possibly  a  billion  and  a  half. 

c  The  sanitary  feature  has  not  been  considered,  although  it  is  one  of  some 
importance.  The  laying  bare  of  large  areas  of  reservoir  bottoms  in  the  heated 
portion  of  the  year  is  objectionable,  but  it  is  not  a  matter  affecting  the  element 
of  cost.  Neither  is  much  stress  here  laid  upon  the  danger  to  the  reservoirs  from 
silting  up.  This  is  not  a  region  of  heavy  silt  movement.  In  most  of  the  reser- 
voirs the  process  will  be  very  slow,  and  we  may  safely  leave  to  distant  genera- 
tions the  task  of  dealing  with  this  problem  whenever  it  reaches  an  acute  stage. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  95- 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing  exposition,  the  weakness  of  the  reser- 
voir scheme  as  a  measure  of  flood  control  or  for  improving  navigation  is  at 
once  apparent.  The  question  is,  Will  the  ends  justify  the  means?  If  the  ends 
sought  could  be  attained  in  no  other  way  possibly  they  might;  but  they  can  be, 
and  for  a  small  fraction  of  the  reservoir  cost.  Consider  the  estimate  already 
given  of  $500,000,000.  Take  $40,000,000  and  reinforce  the  entire  levee  system 
of  the  Mississippi.  That  will  make  it  impregnable — as  safe  as  any  of  the  pro- 
posed reservoir  dams.  Take  $60,000,000  and  revet  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi 
wherever  necessary  from  Cairo  to  the  Gulf.0  The  reservoir  project  does  not 
touch  this  important  matter  at  all.  Devote  whatever  sum  is  necessary  to  the 
protection  of  the  bottom  lands  of  the  Ohio  basin.  Give  Cincinnati  and  Pitts- 
burg  each  $10,000,000  to  assist  in  local  changes  necessary  for  complete  flood 
protection.  Devote  a  sum  to  navigation  such  as  our  engineers  have  never 
dared  dream  of,  and  the  Government  will  still  save  more  than  Mr.  Leighton's 
estimate  of  the  whole  cost  of  the  reservoir  system.  The  more  closely  this  reser- 
voir proposition  is  scrutinized  as  a  scheme  for  flood  prevention  the  more  im- 
practicable it  appears.  It  is  only  a  trade-off  at  best.  It  is  giving  up  to  per- 
petual overflow  valuable  lands  to  save  others  from  occasional  and  even  rare 
overflow  for  short  periods.  Now  if  at  less  cost  these  low  lands  can  be  better 
protected  by  other  means,  thus  leaving  both  the  valley  lands  and  reservoir  sites 
open  to  productive  use,  how  much  better  it  will  be. 

If  the  author  were  to  venture  a  criticism  on  Mr.  Leighton's  attitude  in  this 
matter,  it  would  be  that  he  has  not  fully  appreciated  his  responsibility  in  bring- 
ing forward  again  this  old  proposition  without  fuller  consideration  of  its  organic 
defects.  This  is  well  illustrated  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  his  paper,  in 
which  he  says : 

"  This  report  will  be  confined  to  a  statement  of  possibilities.  There  will  be 
no  attempt  to  prescribe  methods  for  treatment  of  each  local  modifying  condi- 
tion that  will  be  encountered  in  the  prosecution  of  the  plan  here  proposed. 
Such  features  are  merely  collateral,  and  their  proper  disposition  is  a  matter  of 
ordinary  engineering." 

This  is  a  complete  reversal  of  his  obligation  in  the  matter.  The  "possibili- 
ties "  of  reservoir  control  have  long  been  recognized.  The  logic  of  the  plan  is 
well  understood.  It  has  always  appealed  to  the  popular  mind.  In  particular, 
reservoir  control  of  the  Ohio  floods  has  been  advocated  for  more  than  sixty 
years,  and  its  possibilities  have  often  been  investigated.  The  plan  has  been 
uniformly  rejected  on  one  ground,  viz,  that  as  a  scheme  for  flood  control  and 
navigation  improvement  its  benefits  would  not  justify  its  cost.  It  is,  therefore, 
incumbent  upon  whoever  revives  the  scheme  to  come  well  fortified  upon  this 
particular  feature.  He  must  give  some  study  to  the  treatment  of  "  local  mod- 
ifying conditions."  It  makes  a  difference  whether  he  can  go  to  a  great  natural 
lake  like  Winnibigoshish  and  store  40,000,000,000  cubic  feet  of  water  for  a  mere 
trifle,  or  whether  he  must  evict  whole  villages,  disturb  railroads  and  highways, 
absorb  valuable  lands,  and  possibly  subject  communities  to  serious  risk.  These 
are  the  questions  upon  which  the  success  or  failure  of  the  scheme  depends.  Yet 
Mr.  Leighton  brushes  them  aside,  as  it  were,  with  a  wave  of  the  hand,  as 
"  merely  collateral  "  features,  matters  of  "  ordinary  engineering  "  only.  Here 
is  the  weak  point  of  his  project.  Weighed  in  the  balance  of  practical  accom- 
plishment, either  for  flood  control  or  navigation,  it  will  be  found  utterly  want- 
ing, and  the  development  of  the  system,  as  has  always  been  held,  will  have  to 
be  based  primarily  and  mainly  on  its  value  for  industrial  use.  For  the  same 
reasons  that  the  development  of  a  great  reservoir  system  in  the  far  West  is 
justified  by  its  industrial  value — its  use  for  irrigation — so  a  reservoir  system 
for  the  Ohio,  or  any  other  rivers,  except  in  a  few  unusual  cases,  must  depend 
primarily  upon  its  industrial  value— the  development  of  power. 

In  pursuing  his  criticism  further,  the  author  would  not  be  understood  to  be 
"  knocking,"  as  current  slang  goes,  the  feature  of  the  reservoir  system  just 
mentioned,  because,  in  his  judgment,  there  is  no  one  thing  in  the  present  move- 
ment for  the  conservation  of  our  natural  resources  that  is  more  important  than 
storing  the  flood  waters  of  our  streams  for  power  development.  It  stands  in 
the  same  category  with  the  preservation  and  extension  of  our  forests.  It  stands 
on  even  a  surer  basis,  for  man,  either  willfully  or  through  neglect,  can  destroy 
the  forests,  but  he  can  never  diminish  in  the  smallest  degree  the  power  of  run- 
ning water.  It  is  a  great  solar  engine,  perennial  and  perpetual  in  its  action. 

a  Report  Mississippi  River  Commission,  1896,  p.  3457. 


96  FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

It  requires  no  aid  from  man  in  its  production.  All  he  has  to  do  is  to  utilize 
it.  Providentially,  electricity  has  unfolded  its  power  to  transmit  this  energy 
over  great  distances,  and  has  thus  made  practicable  a  development  which  would 
otherwise  have  been  impracticable.  In  time  water  power  will  replace  coal  and 
oil  and  will  become"  the  one  great  source  of  power,  unless  discoveries  are  made 
which  are  not  now  foreseen.  The  author  thoroughly  believes  in  developing  this 
power  through  public  agencies  and  preserving  it  from  private  ownership  and 
control.  His  present  criticism  is  directed  not  at  all  at  the  principle  involved, 
but  at  the  extravagant  expectations  now  being  fostered  as  to  the  possible  rev- 
enue which  the  Government  may  derive  from  such  development. 

The  quantity  of  power  estimated  in  the  publications  of  the  Geological  Survey 
and  the  Agricultural  Department  are  based  upon  an  assumption  that  most 
engineers  will  question,  viz,  that  90  per  cent  of  the  fall  of  our  rivers  can  be 
utilized  in  effective  head  upon  water  wheels.  This  is  too  great  a  figure.  The 
most  thoroughly  developed  river  in  the  United  States,  namely,  the  Merrimac, 
in  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  develops  only  TO  per  cent  of  the  total 
head.  Taking  all  the  streams  into  consideration,  it  seems  hardly  possible  that 
more  than  50  per  cent  of  the  fall  can  be  utilized.  When  the  fall  of  a  river  is 
uniform,  even  if  quite  steep,  the  cost  of  long  canals  or  high  dams  necessary 
to  concentrate  it  at  one  point  often  prohibits  development  altogether.  From 
altitudes  of  3,000  feet  the  Missouri  and  Yellowstone,  for  example,  descend  to 
the  sea  with  a  total  energy  of  possibly  5,000,000  horsepower,  yet  comparatively 
little  of  this  can  be  developed  advantageously.  It  is  only  in  those  places  where 
nature  has  helped  out  by  concentrating  the  fall  at  cataracts  or  rapids  that 
water-power  development  is  commercially  profitable.  At  low  dams,  such  as 
are  ordinarily  built  at  lock  sites,  the  head  is  often  nearly  all  obliterated  during 
high  water.  How  far  storage  may  affect  these  drawbacks  can  not  be  said,  but 
it  should  of  course  help  a  great  deal.  The  official  estimates  of  flow  for  non- 
regulated  streams  are  based  on  two  weeks'  average  lowest  flow.  This  may 
probably  be  extended  materially  with  reservoir  aid  or  supplementary  steam 
power.  Possibly  the  total  estimated  horsepower  may  ultimately  be  realized.0 

When  it  comes  to  the  royalty  which  the  Government  may  receive  for  these 
water  powers,  if  developed  by  private  interests,  the  price  of  $20  per  horsepower, 
adopted  by  the  Geological  Survey  and  the  Agricultural  Department,  is  wholly 
out  of  the  question  under  present  conditions.  Possibly  the  author  does  not 
understand  what  the  figure  is  intended  to  embrace.  From  Mr.  Leighton's  articles 
the  inference  has  been  drawn  that  wherever  the  work  of  the  Government  ren- 
ders power  available  which  was  not  available  before,  either  by  building  dams, 
as  at  lock  sites,  and  thus  creating  a  head,  or  by  storing  water  which  might 
supply  powers  below  with  more  than  they  would  have  without,  the  value  of  the 
power  thus  rendered  available  should  return  to  the  Government  $20  per  horse- 
power per  annum — an  "  exceedingly  low  price,"  as  Mr.  Leighton  puts  it.6 

It  is  not  understood  that  the  Government  is  to  build  the  power  plants,  but 
that  this  is  to  be  done  by  the  interests  availing  themselves  of  the  privilege. 
Estimates  of  undeveloped  water  powers  on  many  streams  of  the  Atlantic  slope 
by  the  Geological  Survey  leave  one  to  infer  that  these  powers  are  considered 
worth  at  least  $20  per  horsepower  to  the  Government  even  without  dams  or 
reservoir  aid.  While  the  statements  are  not  clear  as  to  what  is  actually  meant, 
the  various  references  to  resources  to  be  derived  by  the  Government  from  these 
powers  lead  to  the  above  conclusion.  It  would  be  of  advantage  in  considering 
questions  involving  these  published  estimates,  if  the  basis  for  this  $20  price  or 
royalty  could  be  made  more  specific. 

Under  present  conditions,  or  such  as  can  be  reasonably  foreseen,  no  such 
royalty  is  possible  except  in  extraordinarily  favorable  circumstances.  Efforts 

a  There  has  recently  been  invented  a  device  called  a  "  fall  increaser,"  an  adap- 
tation of  the  Venturi  meter,  by  Clemens  Herschel.  M.  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  which 
promises  to  utilize  the  extra  flow  of  streams  in  time  of  flood  water  and  low 
heads  to  increase  and  maintain  the  head  upon  the  wheels.  If  this  invention 
proves  a  success,  as  seems  probable,  it  will  be  an  immense  gain  to  all  water 
powers  of  low  head  subject  to  large  fluctuation,  as  would  doubtless  be  the  case 
in  very  many  of  those  under  consideration. 

6  On  the  Youghiogheny  alone,  where  it  is  proposed  to  install  a  slack-water 
system  comprising  three  locks  and  dams,  at  an  expense  of  $600,000,  proper  de- 
velopment of  storage  will  insure  the  production  of  a  minimum  of  4,100  horse- 
power, the  value  of  which,  reckoned  on  the  exceedingly  low  price  of  $20  per 
horsepower  year,  would  produce  a  total  income  of  $82,000. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 


97 


which  have  been  made  to  derive  a  satisfactory  revenue  from  existing  powers 
do  not  justify  any  such  prospect.  The  many  and  various  practical  difficulties 
in  exploiting  these  powers  are  rarely  appreciated  by  those  who  have  not  en- 
countered them  in  actual  experience.  The  cost  of  water-power  development 
is  restricted  to  narrow  limits,  if  it  is  to  compete  with  coal.  An  engineer  of 
high  standing,  whose  life  work  has  been  connected  with  water-power  develop- 
ment, says: 

"  I  am  advised  that,  with  good  coal  at  $2  per  ton  in  this  territory,  the  cost 
of  fuel  per  horsepower  per  annum  (300  days  of  24  hours  each)  is  less  than 
$8  for  producer  gas  engines  and  for  steam  power  about  $12.50  in  large  size 
equipments.  In  many  localities  coal  will  cost  even  less  than  $2  per  ton,  allow- 
ing thus  a  still  wider  margin.  If  we  now  consider  the  usual  and  unavoidable 
handicaps  and  incumbrances  to  all  water-power  installations,  such  as  floods,  low 
water,  ice  flow,  back  water,  etc..  we  have  conditions  which  will  make  it  a 
serious  study  for  any  power  consumer  to  determine  if  the  balance  is  not  con- 
siderably against  water  power  in  that  particular  territory,  at  this  time,  from  a 
purely  commercial  standpoint.  At  any  rate  it  must  be  obvious  that  no  such 
rate  as  $20  per  annum  per  horsepower  can  be  paid  to  the  Government  by  any 
power  user  for  the  right  to  draw  the  water  only,  and  besides  this,  stand  the 
expense  of  installing  and  operating  the  water  plant." 

Another  hydraulic  engineer  of  national  reputation  says : 

"  I  think  that  as  a  general  proposition  the  suggestion  that  all  water  powers 
to  which  the  Government  consents  should  pay  royalties,  and  especially  where 
the  parties  own  their  riparian  rights,  would  tend  to  defeat  the  development  of 
most  water  powers  and  would  certainly  very  much  curtail  the  number  of  water- 
power  developments.  I  am  impressed  with  these  conclusions  because  of  the 
present  difficulties  in  financing  good  water-power  propositions." 

In  Power,  May  19,  1908,  is  an  article  by  Henry  Docker  Jackson,  in  which  a 
critical  comparison  is  made  between  steam  and  water  power.  In  this  article 
occur  the  following  tabulated  estimates  of  cost  of  installation  and  of  annual 
operation,  based  upon  a  (theoretical)  installation  of  1,000  horsepower.  The 
costs  are  averages  of  a  number  of  different  plants : 

PLANT  COST. 


Building  and  works  

Engines  boiler,  etc 

Turbines  and  generators 

Transmission  lines,  etc.,  20  miles 


810,000 
i      48,000 

I      15,000  |        17,000 
j        40,000 

I      73,000         134,000 


FIXED  CHARGES. 


S3,  650 
6,160 
600 
3,400 
770 
1,500 
3,650 
1,460 
650 

86,700 

.'... 

3,800 
500 
2,680 
3,500 
2,680 

Fuel  £°  50  per  ton                                                                  

Water 

21,840 
21.84 

19,860 
19.86 

COST  PER  HORSEPOWER  YEAR. 


100  per  cent  load  factor 
75  per  cent  load  factor  . . 
50  per  cent  load  factor  . . 


88  per 
cent. 


Water, 
95  per 
cent. 


$24.82  820.90 
39.92  !  32.00 
54.60  i  45.00 


72538— AGR- 


98  FOREST   LANDS   FOB  THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

From  the  last  part  of  these  tables,  it  is  very  evident  that  a  royalty  of  $20  per 
horsepower  would  turn  the  scale  wholly  in  favor  of  steam  under  all  conditions 
of  load.  In  fact,  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  $5  per  horsepower  per  annum 
would  be  an  outside  figure,  and  even  this  would  often  be  prohibitory.  The  situa- 
tion will  not  necessarily  be  improved  by  the  growing  demand  for  power,  but 
rather  by  the  diminishing  supply  and  increased  cost  of  fuel.  So  long  as  coal 
can  be  had  for  anything  like  present  rates  no  very  great  charge  can  be  realized 
from  water  power  wherever  fuel  is  readily  available.  Under  present  conditions 
$120  per  horsepower  may  be  considered  as  an  average  limit  for  first  cost  of  a 
water-power  plant,  if  it  is  to  compete  with  steam.  A  charge  of  $20  per  horse- 
power per  annum  would  be  equivalent  to  doubling  this  first  cost.0 

A  variable  element  in  the  cost  of  water-power  development  is  the  distance 
from  plant  to  market,  or  the  length  of  the  transmission  line.  When  this  is  very 
great,  as  in  numerous  plants  in  the  mountain  districts  of  the  West,  it  makes  a 
large  addition  to  cost  of  installation  and  must  correspondingly  reduce  the  roy- 
alty that  could  be  paid  for  the  power  itself. 

An  interesting  example  of  what  the  Forestry  Service  has  been  able  to  do  in 
this  line  with  unimproved  water  powers  is  that  of  a  recent  permit  for  the  devel- 
opment of  a  large  power  in  the  Cascade  Mountains  within  the  forest  reserve. 
The  beneficiary  of  the  privilege  is  required  to  pay  annually  for  "  conservation  " 
10  cents  per  1,000  kilowatt  hours — equivalent  to  G5  cents  per  horsepower  per  year 
continuous  running.  The  right  is  retained  by  the  Government  to  increase  this 
charge  25  per  cent  every  five  years  for  a  period  of  forty  years,  after  which  the 
whole  arrangement  may  be  readjusted.  The  maximum  charge  at  the  end  of  the 
forty  years  will,  therefore,  not  exceed  $4  per  horsepower. 

The  only  way  in  which  a  rental  of  $20  per  horsepower  can  be  obtained  with 
any  degree  of  certainty,  and  that  in  only  a  small  proportion  of  the  localities  for 
many  years  to  come,  is  for  the  Government  to  build  the  plants.  It  is  admitted 
that  this  suggestion  will  grate  harshly  on  many  ears  because  of  its  newness  and 
its  departure  from  the  established  ideas.  But  a  little  consideration  will  show 
it  to  be  not  only  the  best  way  for  both  private  and  public  interests,  but  really 
the  only  practicable  way.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  a  concrete  example : 

The  Government  has  just  completed  a  survey  and  adopted  a  project  for  the 
construction  of  what  is  known  as  the  Lake  Washington  Canal  in  the  city  of 
Seattle.  It  is  a  canal  to  connect  Lakes  Union  and  Washington  with  Puget 
Sound.  The  discharge  from  the  tributary  watershed  which  will  flow  through 
the  canal  averages  about  1,500  cubic  feet  per  second.  The  mean  fall  at  the 
lock  site  is  about  15  feet.  The  theoretical  energy  is  about  2,500  horsepower, 
but  owing  to  the  tidal  fluctuation  and  variations  of  flow  with  the  seasons 
(which  can  not  be  wholly  eliminated  on 'account  of  the  necessity  of  limiting 
fluctuations  of  level  in  the  lakes  to  about  3  feet,  and  also  to  the  requirements 
for  canal  power,  lockage,  and  leakage),  it  was  thought  that  about  only  1,000 
horsepower  could  be  depended  upon  with  certainty  for  outside  use.  As  this 
poVer  is  located  in  the  heart  of  a  great  city,  it  seemed  as  if  it  ought  to  be 
turned  to  good  account  in  helping  bear  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  canal. 
Efforts  to  obtain  tentative  propositions  for  developing  this  power  were,  how- 
ever, wholly  fruitless.  The  plan  was  then  considered  of  having  the  Government 
build  the  plant  and  lease  it  to  consumers  of  power.  On  this  basis  a  tentative 
offer  was  obtained  from  a  responsible  consumer  to  take  the  plant,  operate  it, 
keep  up  all  repairs  and  pay  the  Government  $18  per  horsepower  year.  Prob- 
ably by  the  time  the  canal  is  completed,  a  figure  of  $25  can  be  obtained,  and  as 
more  than  1,000  horsepower  will  probably  be  developed,  it  is  likely  that  the 
Government  will  receive  upward  of  $30,000  per  year  for  this  power — enough  to 
pay  the  entire  cost  of  operating  the  canal.  The  extra  cost  to  the  project  of 
adopting  the  power-plant  feature  is  $220,000,  so  that  the  revenue  will  be  nearly 
14  per  cent  upon  the  expenditure. 

In  recommending  this  plan  to  the  department,  it  was  pointed  out  that  the 
true  advantage  of  the  Government,  even  apart  from  the  revenue  expected, 
favored  its  adoption.  It  simplified  the  whole  relation  between  the  Government 


aMr.  Leighton  cites  the  falls  of  the  Ohio  as  an  example  of  an  opportunity  to 
develop  110,000  horsepower  by  aid  of  his  proposed  reservoir  reguhition.  This, 
he  states,  at  $20  per  horsepower,  is  3  per  cent  interest  on  $73,000,000.  To  any- 
one familiar  with  the  physical  conditions  involved  in  the  development  of  this 
power  it  will  appear  extremely  doubtful  if  any  company  could  guarantee  to 
deliver  continuously  this  amount  of  power,  even  with  the  full  aid  of  reservoir 
regulation,  and  pay  any  royalty  whatever. 


FOKEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.  99 

and  the  consumer.  If  private  interests  were  to  build  the  plant,  they  would 
jicquire  vested  rights  which  would  always  stand  in  the  way  of  future  control 
mid  lead  to  complications  if  it  should  become  necessary  to  terminate  the 
arrangement.  With  the  plant  in  the  possession  of  4;he  Government  and  the 
users  standing  simply  in  the  relation  of  lessees  for  a  limited  period,  without 
great  initial  expense  on  their  part,  and  with  freedom  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  control  the  arrangement  without  the  complication  of  private  owner- 
ship, the  whole  plan  would  stand  on  a  simple,  practical,  business  basis.  This 
view  prevailed  with  the  department  and  is  now  before  Congress  for  adoption, 
being  possibly  a  departure  in  this  line. 

The  principle  involved  in  this  case  should  be  given  general  application.  In 
addition  to  avoiding  complications  with  private  ownership,  there  are  other  im- 
portant considerations.  When  a  power  is  developed  or  a  reservoir  built,  it 
should  be  so  planned  from  the  start  as  to  bring  out  its  full  possibilities.  A 
private  company  can  rarely  do  this.  Generally  its  scheme  does  not  require  it, 
nor  its  resources  permit ;  but  a  site  once  occupied  by  an  inferior  work  may  be 
perpetually  barred  from  complete  development.  Moreover,  in  any  such  work, 
the  Government  can  derive  a  greater  benefit  than  any  private  individual  or 
association.  A  private  company  must  build  for  the  immediate  future;  it  can 
not  wait  long  for  dividends  and  it  can  generally  realize  only  on  such  applica- 
tion of  the  power  as  is  possible  in  the  immediate  vicinity.  The  Government, 
on  the  other  hand,  derives  all  the  benefits  which  come  from  the  stored  water 
anywhere  on  its  course  from  the  reservoir  to  sea.  These  benefits  arise  from 
all  the  powers  through  which  the  water  flows;  from  the  improvement  of  navi- 
gation and  the  prevention  of  floods  and  from  every  other  use  to  which  the 
water  can  be  put.  Furthermore,  the  Government  is  building  for  all  time, 
while  the  individual  builds  only  for  the  present  and  near  future.  The  case  is 
similar  to  that  of  landlord  and  tenant.  A  tenant  can  not  afford  to  make  im- 
provements on  the  farm  because  it  is  not  his  and  he  may  remain  on  it  only 
a  short  time.  The  most  he  can  do  is  to  get  out  of  the  farm  what  he  can  in 
its  actual  condition.  The  owner,  on  the  other  hand,  can  put  in  improvements 
which  yield  him  no  immediate  return  because  he  holds  the  property  long 
enough  to  realize  upon  them.  So  it  is  with  the  Government;  it  can  wait  for 
realization  upon  its  improvements  much  longer  than  a  private  company.  In 
forestry,  for  example,  no  individual  can  afford  to  wait  from  three  to  ten  gen- 
erations for  a  crop.  Only  the  Government  or  a  great  railroad  corporation  can 
do  this.  Likewise,  in  building  great  reservoirs,  no  private  company  can  build 
for  the  distant  future.  It  is  only  the  landlord  that  can  make  such  far-reaching 
improvements  upon  his  estate. 

Wherever,  therefore,  there  arises  any  real  demand  for  power  development  at 
the  site  of  any  government  work,  as  a  lock  and  dam,  the  judicious  course  would 
seem  to  be  for  the  Government  to  prepare  a  comprehensive  plan  for  development 
capable  of  being  carried  out  progressively  as  the  market  for  power  may  justify. 
Let  it  then  build  the  plant  as  fast  as  needed  and  lease  it  to  private  agencies 
under  suitable  restrictions.  Likewise,  when  the  building  of  a  reservoir  prom- 
ises to  be  of  obvious  utflity,  and  the  conditions  are  such  as  to  make  it  properly  a 
subject  of  government  adoption,  let  the  Government  build  it,  utilizing  the  water 
in  its  own  plants  below  and  collecting  a  revenue  from  private  plants  that  may 
use  it.  Whenever  at  the  time  of  construction  there  is  a  direct  return  in  sight 
of  2  or  3  per  cent,  it  should  be  considered  justifiable  from  a  Government  point 
of  view.  The  certain  enhancement  ia  the  future  value  of  such  utilities  and  the 
incidental  advantages  in  flood  protection  and  navigation  make  this  a  conserva- 
tive proposition. 

That  difficulties  will  be  encountered  in  deriving  the  full  return  from  its  work 
to  which  the  Government  would  be  entitled  can  not  be  denied.  This  would  be 
the  case,  particularly  wherever  it  is  a  question  of  compelling  existing  power 
plants  to  pay  for  the  extra  water  they  might  receive  through  government 
storage.  This  question  came  up  before  the  Mississippi  Reservoir  Board  in 
regard  to  the  powers  at  St.  Anthonys  Falls  which  derive  such  benefit  from  the 
reservoirs.  The  board  remarked  as  follows  on  the  subject: 

"  It  may  be  urged  that  if  the  incidental  benefits  of  the  reservoirs  to  the  water- 
power  interests  are  so  great,  these  interests  should  be  required  to  contribute 
something  to  the  maintenance  of  the  system.  There  would  doubtless  be  a  will- 
ingness to  do  this  if  a  satisfactory  method  could  be  found.  But  there  is  no 
practicable  method  of  enforcing  any  charge  upon  the  use  of  this  water.  Where 
water  is  taken  in  a  separate  channel  from  above  a  dam  or  lock  and  conducted 
to  a  mill,  it  is  a  simple  thing  to  measure  it  and  to  cut  it  off  if  it  is  not  paid  for. 


100         FOREST  LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

But  when  it  must  be  let  into  a  natural  stream,  where  it  mingles  with  the  run-off 
from  below,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  what  proportion  of  stored  water  the 
mill  may  be  using  or  to  enforce  its  nonuse  if  not  paid  for.  But,  if  such  an 
arrangement  is  not  practicable,  that  fact  does  not  constitute  an  argument 
against  the  reservoir  system.  So  long  as  t£e  reservoirs  are  performing  the 
service  for  which  they  were  created,  every  additional  benefit  derived  from  them 
is  only  an  additional  argument  in  their  favor." 

These  disadvantages  will  adjust  themselves  in  time. 

Such,  in  the  opinion  of  the  author,  must  be  the  basis  of  any  great  reservoir 
system  in  our  country— industrial  use.  Even  in  the  uniquely  favorable  condi- 
tions at  the  headwaters  of  the  Mississippi,  no  one  can  doubt  that  the  real  pur- 
pose being  served  is  that  of  mill  power,  whatever  the  theory  upon  which  the 
reservoirs  were  built.  The  great  system  of  the  far  West  is  being  built  for 
irrigation,  power,  and  domestic  supply.  So  on  the  Ohio  and  other  eastern 
streams,  the  system  must  rest  upon  an  industrial  basis  and  expand  only  as 
industrial  demands  justify.  The  innovation  involved  in  building  reservoirs 
with  public  funds  for  these  uses  is  admitted;  but  it  is  no  greater  than  it  was 
ten  years  ago  to  build  them  for  irrigation.  When  the  author  was  investigating 
that  subject  in  1896-97,  he  found  a  widespread  opposition  throughout  the  arid 
regions  against  government  control  of  irrigation  works  in  any  way,  and  in  his 
report  he  went  no  further  than  to  advise  the  building  of  reservoirs  for  giving 
the  people  more  water,  leaving  its  distribution  exactly  as  it  was  before.  Yet  in 
the  short  space  of  ten  years  public  sentiment  has  completely  changed,  and 
to-day  no  one  questions  the  wisdom  of  the  broader  plan  upon  which  these  works 
are  being  carried  out.  So  it  will  surely  be  in  regard  to  reservoirs  in  all  other 
parts  of  the  country.  The  principle  is  the  same.  It  may  be  accepted  that  only 
the  general  Government  can  do  this  work  in  the  comprehensive  way  in  which 
it  ought  to  be  done,  because  only  the  Government  can  reap  all  the  benefits ;  only 
the  Government  can  wait  the  long  periods  necessary  for  full  returns ;  and  only 
the  Government  has  the  necessary  resources  to  make  expenditures  on  the  re- 
quired scale.  These  points  will  not  be  enlarged  upon,  and  the  many  and  cogent 
reasons  why  this  is  so  will  not  be  given.  The  trend  of  public  thought  is  all  hi 
that  direction.  The  old  idea  that  the  Government  can  riot  execute  great  works 
or  small  as  cheaply,  efliciently,  and  expeditiously  as  private  agencies  is  fast 
being  dispelled,  and  the  vast  benefits  which  the  people  derive  from  public  con- 
trol of  important  enterprises  are  coming  into  fuller  recognition  all  the  time. 

The  foregoing  remarks  should  not  be  construed  as  in  any  way  rejecting  the 
idea  of  local  help  by  States,  counties,  cities,  or  even  private  agencies.  It  often 
happens  that  public  works  have  a  special  local  importance  in  addition  to  their 
public  value.  It  is  just  and  proper  in  such  cases  that  local  aid  be  given.  This 
principle  is  now  fully  incorporated  in  river  and  harbor  legislation.  For  ex- 
ample, the  Lake  Washington  Canal,  which  will  be  of  very  great  importance  to 
the  city  of  Seattle,  is  a  joint  enterprise  between  the  Government  and  the  city, 
the  latter  paying  fully  one-third  of  the  cost.  The  cooperation  between  the 
United  States  Geological  Survey  and  the  several  States, in  preparing  a  contour 
map  of  the  country  is  an  example  on  a  large  scale.  The  principle  ought  to  find 
an  extensive  application  in  the  establishment  of  national  forests  throughout  the 
country. 

CONCLUSION. 

This  paper  will  be  closed  with  some  reference  to  the  relation  of  navigation  to 
other  uses  of  our  streams  and  to  certain  legal  obstacles  that  stand  in  the  way 
of  comprehensive  me.'isures.  That  the  improvement  of  our  inlnnd  waterways 
should  be  organized  upon  a  more  rational  system  than  it  has  ever  been ; 
that  the  reciprocal  relation  between  navigation,  water  power,  etc..  should  be 
given  practical  recognition;  above  all.  that  the  prosecution  of  these  works 
.should  be  placed  upon  the  same  sure  basis  as  is  the  construction  of  the  Panama 
Canal,  with  positive  assurance  that,  when  once  commenced,  funds  will  be 
forthcoming  for  their  prompt  completion,  would  seem  to  admit  of  no  doubt. 
How  far  navigation  should  be  correlated,  in  improvement  work,  with  other  uses 
of  the  streams  is  an  open  question.  Water  power  and  navigation  are  in  many 
cases  so  closely  related  that  they  will  have  to  be  considered  together.  In 
regard  to  soil  wash,  no  such  intimate  relation  exists.  To  whatever  extent  soil 
.erosion  now  exceeds  that  of  former  times  it  relates  almost  exclusively  to  culti- 
vation and  has  no  appreciable  influence  upon  the  channels.  Its  control  is  of 
far  greater  importance  to  agriculture  than  it  is  to  navigation.  This  is  also 
true  of  irrigation,  which,  so  far  as  it  affects  navigation  at  all,  affects  it  in- 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        101 

juriously.  If  the  development  of  irrigation  is  ever  carried  to  the  length  that 
we  hope  it  may  be,  it  will  cause  a  heavy  drain  upon  the  low-water  flow  of  the 
Missouri.  Sacramento,  San  Joaquin.  and  the  Columbia  rivers  (not  important 
as  to  this  stream),  the  only  navigable  waterways  of  consequence  that  are 
affected  by  it.  Except  for  this  fact  of  drawing  water  from  the  stream,  irri- 
gation has  no  relation  to  navigation. 

Forestry,  irrigation,  and  prevention  of  soil  wash  are  all  related  to  the  con- 
servation of  the  vegetable  resources  of  the  country.  They  are  kindred  purposes 
and  should  naturally  fall  under  the  same  administrative  control.  Navigation  is 
a  function  of  transportation,  which  is  a  very  different  subject.  Water  power 
is  becoming  more  and  more  closely  related  to  it,  and  these  two  subjects  natu- 
rally go  together.  It  must  not  be  expected  that  the  character  of  works  for  river 
regulation  can  be  materially  changed  by  means  of  reservoirs,  forests,  or  soil- 
wash  prevention.  Levees  and  bank  protection,  locks  and  dams,  dikes  and 
dredging  will  continue  to  be  standard  methods  of  river  improvement  in  the 
future  as  in  the  past.  The  accumulated  experience  of  centuries  in  all  civilized 
countries  can  not  be  set  aside  in  a  moment.  In  particular,  flood  protection  is 
not  likely  ever  to  find  any  complete  substitute  for  levees.  They  have  been 
used  extensively  the  world  over  throughout  recorded  history.  People  who  think 
only  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  Po.  when  levees  are  mentioned,  little  understand 
to  what  an  extent  "  diking  "  is  resorted  to  wherever  rich  bottom  lands  have  to 
be  guarded  against  floods  or  tides.  Some  of  the  Quest  agricultural  lands  in 
the  world  are  behind  levees  where  almost  perfect  security  is  felt.  No  class  of 
river  control  is  in  more  extensive  use,  none  is  better  understood,  and  from 
none  has  the  world,  throughout  its  history,  derived  greater  security  and  benefit. 

Municipalities,  like  Pittsburg,  Cincinnati,  and  Kansas  City,  must  look  in  the 
main  to  their  own  efforts  for  protection  against  floods.  In  particular  they 
must  reject  absolutely  the  delusive  promises  of  forestry.  These  cities  are  tres- 
passers upon  grounds  dedicated  by  Nature  to  a  condition  of  overflow.  They 
have  occupied  these  grounds  and  placed  themselves  in  the  way  of  the  floods 
deliberately  and  with  their  eyes  open.  They  have  gone  farther  than  this,  and 
iu  many  instances  have  encroached  upon  the  channels  and  have  thus  made  the 
Hoods  worse  than  they  used  to  be.  It  is  not  for  them  now  to  look  for  outside 
deliverance,  but  they  themselves  should  grapple  courageously  with  the  problem. 
In  most  cases  these  problems  admit,  if  not  of  complete  solution,  at  least  of  a 
very  large  measure  of  relief.  The  maxim  that  Providence  helps  them  who  help 
themselves  may  also  apply  to  the  Government.  Cooperation  in  connection  with 
its  regular  work,  either  in  channel  improvement  or  in  the  building  of  reservoirs, 
would  doubtless  be  given.  The  disposition  which  must  be  met  and  overcome  is 
to  let  things  go  as  they  are,  trusting  blindly  to  chance  to  deal  more  kindly  in 
the  future.  This  supineness  of  spirit  and  the  enervating  reliance  upon  indefinite 
future  relief  through  the  agency  of  the  Government  must  be  replaced  by  self- 
reliance,  and  these  great  industrial  centers  must  rise  in  their  own  might  and 
free  themselves  from  their  bondage  to  these  ever-recurring  catastrophies.  In 
Boston.  Chicago.  Galveston.  San  Francisco,  and  even  in  that  lusty  young  giant 
of  the  Northwest,  Seattle,  are  examples  enough  of  what  an  aroused  civic  spirit 
can  do  in  the  direction  of  self-aid.0 

The  part  that  reservoirs  will  play  in  the  larger  problems  of  channel  improve- 
ment and  flood  control  on  the  great  rivers  will  be  in  the  nature  of  an  insur- 
ance. Every  cubic  foot  of  water  taken  from  the  crest  of  a  flood  and  released 
when  the  rivers  are  lowest  is  pro  tanto  a  benefit.  If  the  great  floods  of  the 
Mississippi  can  be  cut  down  by  so  much  as  a  foot  through  reservoir  storage,  it 

°The  author  is  not  closely  familiar  with  the  situation  at  Pittsburg  and  Cin- 
cinnati, but  he  is  familiar  with  that  at  the  two  Kansas  Citys  where,  in  1903,  the 
greatest  loss  occurred  that  any  American  city  ever  sustained  at  the  hands  of  a 
river  flood.  He  speaks  from  the  results  of  careful  study  on  the  ground  when  he 
states  with  the  utmost  positiveness  that  for  approximately  $10,000,000,  with 
such  aid  as  might  reasonably  be  expected  from  the  Government  on  the  Mis- 
souri River  front,  the  flood  problem  of  the  Kaw  and  Missouri  in  that  hive  of 
industrial  enterprise  known  as  the  West  Bottoms  can  be  solved  absolutely;  the 
too  small  area  of  these  bottoms  can  be  increased  by  upward  of  200  acres;  two- 
thirds  of  the  bridges  in  the  same  area  can  be  eliminated ;  that  prodigious  bar- 
rier to  free  movement — the  Kaw  River-^-can  be  practically  removed  or  placed 
where  it  will  not  be  in  the  way ;  and  the  general  situation  can  be  so  improved 
that  the  resulting  benefits,  wholly  apart  from  that  of  flood  protection,  would  be 
well  worth  the  cost. 


102         FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

will  be  an  immense  gain ;  and  the  same  will  be  true  if  the  low-water  stages  cau 
be  increased  by  two  or  three  feet.  Whether  the  much  greater  results  expected 
by  Mr.  Leighton  can  ever  be  realized  is  a  question  which  the  future  alone  can 
determine. 

A  word,  finally,  concerning  the  legal  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  broad  Govern- 
ment policy  looking  to  the  development  of  national  forests  and  the  storage  of 
water  on  an  extensive  scale.  The  expansion  of  Government  work  into  fields  of 
obvious  utility  is  often  blocked  by  the  structure  of  our  Government  through 
the  bar  of  constitutional  prohibition  or  at  least  lack  of  power.  It  is  said  that 
the  purchase  of  lands  for  the  rearing  of  forests  for  timber  alone  is  unconstitu- 
tional, and  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  storage  of  water  for  any  other  purpose 
than  navigation ;  and  yet,  forests  for  timber  and  reservoirs  for  power  must 
always  remain  the  real  justification  for  public  expenditure  along  these  lines. 
To  the  average  understanding  the  distinction  between  things  constitutional  and 
things  unconstitutional  is  often  hard  to  discern.  The  Government  is  now 
expending  millions  in  storing  water  and  conducting  it  upon  land  whereby  the 
products  of  the  soil  may  be  obtained.  It  is  applying  this  water  to  both  public 
and  private  land,  or  to  lands  that  were  in  private  ownership  when  the  projects 
began.  Is  there  any  real  difference  between  providing  the  power  to  raise  sugar 
beets,  for  instance,  and  that  for  manufacturing  them  into  form  for  human  con- 
sumption and  transporting  them  to  the  consumer?  Are  not  the  last-mentioned 
purposes  quite  as  necessary  as  the  first?0  And  again,  is  there  any  distinction 
in  principle  between  improving  a  river  so  that  boats  can  navigate  it  and  improv- 
ing it  so  that  it  may  provide  power  that  will  transport  produce  by  laud  as  well 
as  by  water? 

Again,  the  Government  has  accepted  gifts  of  land  like  the  Yosemite  Valley 
and  the  Muir  Redwood  Grove,  to  be  given  over  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  people 
and  involving  perpetual  expenditures  for  maintenance  in  the  future.  It  has 
traded  lauds  of  its  own  for  lands  with  which  it  has  parted  ownership.  It 
reserves  vast  areas  to-day  which  might  be  private  lands  to-morrow.  What  is 
the  distinction  of  principle  between  doing  all  these  things  and  buying  outright 
lands  that  are  needed  for  the  same  or  similar  purposes?  They  are  distinctions 
without  real  differences.  They  concern  the  letter  and  not  the  spirit,  and  they 
can  not  stand  whenever  the  interests  of  the  public  really  demand  their 
abrogation. 

Still,  it  is  probably  a  fact  that  federal1  authority  to  buy  lands  for  forest 
culture  alone  and  to  create  reservoirs  for  industrial  use  exclusively,  would  be 
considered  by  the  courts  as  transcending  the  power  of  Congress  under  the 
Constitution,  and  it  is  this  fact  that  forces  those  who  believe  in  having  the 
Government  do  these  things  to  strain  the  truth  by  attempting  to  prove  that 
they  are  necessary  for  navigation  and  for  the  prevention  of  floods.  It  enforces 
a  policy  of  indirection  instead  of  permitting  these  things  to  be  done  squarely 
for  their  real  purpose  and  as  a  matter  of  right.  In  his  address  before  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  in  its  hearing  on  the  Appalachian  bill,  Mr.  Pinchot 
stated  that  that  proposition  must  stand  or  fall  upon  the  theory  that  the  forests 
regulate  stream  flow,  and  are  therefore  useful  to  navigation.  Did  he  not  refer 
to  the  particular  point  here  under  consideration — that  on  any  other  theory  the 
measure  would  be  unconstitutional?  Surely  he  did  not  mean  that  the  cause  of 
forestry  itself  must  stand  or  fall  upon  any  such  issue. 

Does  not  this  situation  suggest  the  necessity  for  an  important  initial  step 
tvhich  shall  sweep  away  these  artificial  barriers  and  let  these  great  questions 
stand  or  fall  on  their  intrinsic  merit?  If  the  upbuilding  of  new  forests,  if  the 
storing  of  our  flood  waters,  are  necessary  measures  for  the  welfare  of  the 
nation,  the  way  should  be  cleared  for  their  accomplishment.  There  may  be 
differences  of  opinion  about  amending  the  Constitution  in  the  interest  of  uni- 
form divorce  laws,  popular  election  of  Senators  and  the  like,  bur.  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  universal  agreement  upon  the  particular  subjects  here  consid- 
ered, every  State  in  the  Union  would  ratify  an  amendment  giving  to  Congress 
the  power  to  legislate  for  the  conservation  and  development  of  the  natural 
resources  of  the  country. 

The  author  should  possibly  state,  in  justice  to  the  otncinl  body  of  engineers 
to  which  he  belongs,  that  the  arguments  presented  in  the  foregoing  paper  are 
his  individual  opinions  only.  He  is  not  acquainted  with  the  views  of  tiny  other 
officer  upon  the  subjects  treated,  except  as  he  has  seen  them  expressed  in 
official  reports  or  in  the  public  press. 

a  It  has  even  been  hinted  by  high  judicial  authority  that  the  reclamation  act 
itself  would  not  stand  the  test  of  constitutionality,  if  brought  into  court. 


FOREST   LANDS  FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        103 

THK  EQUALIZING  INFLUENCE  OF  FOKKSTS  ON  THE  FLOW  OF  STREAMS  AND  THEIB 
VALUE  AS  A  MEANS  OF  IMPROVING  NAVIGATION. 

[Being  mainly  a  rejoinder  to  the  paper  of  Col.  H.  M.  Chittenden,  U.  S.  Army,  entitled 
"  Forests  and  reservoirs  in  their  relation  to  stream  flow,  with  particular  reference  to 
navigable  rivers,"  presented  before  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers.  Prepared 
at  the  request  of  His  Excellency  Curtis  Guild,  jr.,  governor  of  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts, by  George  F.  Swain,  LL.  D.,  professor  of  civil  engineering  in  the  Massachusetts 
Institute  of  Technology.] 

It  is  the  opinion  of  probably  the  great  majority  of  engineers  conversant  with 
the  subject,  that  forests  act  as  equalizers  of  the  flow  of  streams  by  diminishing, 
in  general,  the  frequency  and  violence  of  freshets,  and  increasing  the  low-water 
flow,  and  by  preventing  the  erosion  of  the  soil  and  the  consequent  silting  up  of 
water  courses. 

Based  on  these  premises,  it  is  believed  to  be  of  much  importance  to  the  inter- 
ests of  navigation  as  well  as  to  other  interests,  that  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment should  establish  forest  reserves  in  the  Southern  Appalachian  and  White 
Mountains,  the  object  of  such  reserves  being : 

First.  To  aid  in  the  protection  of  certain  given  watersheds. 

Second.  To  enable  the  Government  to  give  an  object  lesson  to  private  owners 
in  the  vicinity  as  to  what  may  be  accomplished  by  proper  forest  management, 
and  to  cooperate  directly  with  such  private  owners  in  encouraging  them  to  use 
the  best  methods. 

Third.  To  aid  in  preventing  forest  fires  and  the  consequent  deterioration  of 
the  soil  and  destruction  of  timber  on  both  government  and  private  lands. 

Fourth.  To  aid  in  and  encourage  reforesting,  and  by  this  means  and  by  proper 
management  to  augment  and  prolong  the  timber  supply. 

In  September,  1!)08,  a  paper,  the  title  of  which  has  been  quoted  above,  was 
published  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  by 
Col.  H.  M.  Chittenden,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  in  which  argu- 
ments were  advanced  which  in  a  measure  seem  to  controvert  the  generally 
accepted  opinions.  The  present  paper  is  a  brief  rejoinder  to  that  article,  pre- 
pared with  special  reference  to  its  bearing  upon  the  Appalachian  and  White 
Mountain  Forest  Reserve  bill. 

The  paper  of  Colonel  Chittenden  is  exceedingly  well  written,  and  upon  first 
reading  might  seem  to  contain  strong  arguments  against  the  regulative  action 
of  forests.  Upon  analyzing  its  statements,  however,  it  will  be  perceived  that 
Colonel  Chittenden  practically  acknowledges  most  of  the  claims  made  for 
forests,  that  the  paper  contains  many  contradictory  assertions  and  illogical 
deductions,  and  that  his  arguments  are  largely  conjectural  and  unaccompanied 
by  proof. 

The  paper  states  that  the  commonly  accepted  opinion  is  that  forests  have  a 
beneficial  influence  on  stream  flow  (1)  "by  storing  the  waters  from  rain  and 
melting  snow  in  the  bed  of  humus  that  develops  under  forest  cover  *  *  * 
preventing  their  rapid  rush  to  the  streams  and  paying  them  out  gradually 
afterwards,  thus  acting  as  true  reservoirs  in  equalizing  the  run-off;  (2)  by 
retarding  the  snow  melting  in  the  spring  and  prolonging  the  run-off  from  that 
source;  (3)  by  increasing  precipitation;  (4)  by  preventing  erosion  of  the  soil 
on  steep  slopes  and  thereby  protecting  water  courses,  canals,  reservoirs,  and 
similar  works  from  accumulations  of  silt." 

This  will  probably  be  admitted  to  be  a  fair  statement  of  what  the  believers 
in  the  benefits  of  forests  consider  to  be  true,  except  that  some  do  not  consider 
that  there  is  yet  sufficient  demonstration  that  they  increase  the  rainfall,  and 
also  except  that  the  water  is  not  stored  simply  in  the  bed  of  humus,  but  also 
in  the  ground  beneath. 

With  reference  to  the  first  of  these  points,  the  author  states  that  it  is  "  strictly 
true  of  average  conditions."  He  says :  "  It  is  true,  therefore,  as  popularly  under- 
stood, that,  in  periods  of  ordinary  rainfall,  with  sufficient  intervals  for  the  forest 
bed  to  dry  out  somewhat,  forests  do  exert  a  regulative  effect  upon  run-off. 
They  modify  freshets  and  torrents  and  prolong  the  mn-off  after  storms  hav<T 
passed,  and  therefore  realize  in  more  or  less  perfection  the  commonly  accepted 
theory." 

He  believes,  however,  that  this  beneficial  effect  is  not  exerted  under  extreme 
conditions,  i.  e.,  great  floods  and  excessive  low  waters,  and  he  states  that  these 
extreme  conditions  "  determine  the  character  and  cost  of  river  control." 

Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  presence  of  forests  does  not  affect  "ex- 
treme conditions,"  this  is  no  argument  against  the  value  of  forests,  for  it  is 


104         FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

certainly  not  true  that  only  extreme  conditions  affect  the  navigability  of 
streams  or  "  determine  the  character  and  cost  of  river  control."  Extreme  con- 
ditions determine  certain  elements,  such,  for-  instance,  as  the  height  of  levees. 
Colonel  Chittenden  certainly  can  not  mean  to  state  that  ordinary,  everyday 
floods  do  not  carve  away  banks  and  cause  shoaling  of  channels,  rendering 
dredging  necessary  for  navigation.  A  few  high  but  not  extreme  floods  may  do 
much  more  damage  than  one  extreme  flood,  and  may  necessitate  more  expendi- 
ture for  dredging  and  other  purposes.  Extreme  conditions  are  in  the  nature  of 
freaks.  They  occur  only  at  intervals  of  many  years.  It  would  seem  to  be  more 
nearly  correct  to  state  that  the  interests  of  navigation  are  governed  more  by  the 
usual  conditions,  and  that  it  is  possible  for  extreme  conditions  at  rare  intervals 
to  interrupt  traffic  for  a  short  time  without  causing  much  loss.  It  may  as  well 
be  argued  that  it  is  not  wise  to  attempt  improvements  on  railroads  because  an 
earthquake  or  a  tornado  or  an  extreme  flood  in  a  river  may  destroy  a  portion 
of  the  track  and  interrupt  traffic  for  a  while.  It  matters  little  in  the  naviga- 
bility of  a  stream  if  at  intervals  of  twenty,  thirty,  or  fifty  years  an  extreme 
drought  occurs  for  a  few  days  or  weeks,  making  the  depth  of  the  channel 
insufficient  for  the  largest  vessels. 

If  it  be  true,  therefore,  that  extreme  conditions  do  not  govern  the  question, 
Colonel  Chittenden  has  admited  all  that  the  advocates  of  forests  desire.  Let  us 
consider,  however,  the  arguments  with  reference  to  such  extreme  conditions : 

The  argument  with  reference  to  extreme  floods  appears  to  be  that  floods  are 
always  the  result  of  combinations  from  various  tributaries;  the  highest  flood 
from  one  stream  coming  at  the  same  time  as  the  highest  flood  from  other 
streams,  occurring  after  periods  of  long-continued  and  widespread  precipita- 
tion. In  such  cases  the  forest  bed  becomes  completely  saturated,  its  storage 
capacity  exhausted,  and  when  this  point  is  reached  "  the  forest  has  no  more 
power  to  restrain  floods  than  the  open  country  itself." 

It  is  of  course  evident  that  the  rainfall  may  be  so  great  and  long  continued 
that  the  forest  bed  becomes  saturated  and  that  the  water  flows  over  the  surface, 
but  it  does  not  seeni  incorrect  to  say  that  in  this  case  the  forest  has  no  more 
power  to  restrain  floods  than  the  open  country  itself.  The  discharge  will  be 
hindered  in  the  forest  by  the  physical  conditions  and  because  the  soil  will  -n6*l 
be  washed  away  and  the  water  will  not  be  gathered  into  torrents  flowing  down 
through  eroded  channels.  Moreover,  it  seems  a  strange  argument  to  maintain 
that  because  the  retentive  power  of  the  forest  is  not  unlimited  it  is  not  therefore 
useful.  Even  if  it  be  admitted,  however,  that  under  a  torrential  rainfall  the 
water  flows  away  from  the  forest  without  hindrance,  it  is  under  just  such 
a  condition  that  the  forest  is  most  valuable  in  preventing  erosion,  for  the  water 
is  distributed  over  the  forest  floor  and  does  not  carry  away  with  it  the  earth 
beneath.  With  reference  to  this  point,  however,  Colonel  Chittendeu  maintains 
that  there  is  no  more  erosion  from  cut-over  lauds  than  from  forested  lauds. 
There  are  certain  reasons  for  believing  that  he  is  not  correct.  In  the  first 
place,  the  forest  cover  is  always  more  or  less  disturbed  or  injured  by  the  cut- 
ting, and  after  cutting  is  done  it  is  more  exposed  to  the  sun  and  becomes  dryer 
in  summer  and  more  liable  to  take  fire.  It  is  believed  to  be  a  fact  that  fire 
very  frequently  follows  the  lumberman  and  originates  on  cut-over  land.  This 
still  further  destroys  the  forest  cover,  and  heavy  rain  falling  on  deforested 
ground  is  not  broken  in  its  fall  by  the  leaves  and  branches  of  the  trees.  In 
many  places,  of  course,  a  new  growth  springs  up  after  the  forest  is  cut,  if  it 
is  not  prevented  by  fire,  and  this  new  growth  Will  in  the  course  of  time  become 
a  new  forest  and  the  old  conditions  will  be  restored,  but  in  the  meantime  there 
is  a  deterioration  of  the  soil  covering  and  a  greater  liability  to  erosion,  as  well 
as  a  smaller  power  of  retention  and  consequent  more  rapid  discharge  of  the 
rain  waters.  In  some  parts  of  the  White  Mountains,  tracts  once  cut  clean 
and  burned  over  do  not  grow  up  again. 

Colonel  Chittendeu  suggests  that  under  extreme  flood  conditions,  such  as  have 
been  referred  to,  the  presence  of  a  forest  may  actually  produce  a  worse  condi- 
tion than  if  the  country  were  cleared,  and  asserts  positively,  but  without  proof, 
"  that  the  forest  does  promote  tributary  combinations  *  *  *  and  that  it 
may  therefore  aggravate  flood  conditions."  He  continues,  "  that  forests  never 
diminish  great  floods,  and  they  probably  do  increase  them  somewhat."  As  this 
statement  is  not  proven,  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  Colonel  Chittendeu's  per- 
sonal opinion.  There  is  certainly  no  more  reason  for  believing  that  forests  pro- 
mote the  combination  of  floods  from  different  tributaries  than  that  they  have 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        105 

the  opposite  effect.  It  may  be  admitted,  however,  that  it  is  possible  to  con- 
ceive of  circumstances  in  which,  under  extreme  conditions,  the  presence  of  a 
particular  forest  may  increase  a  particular  flood  at  a  particular  point.  It  is 
equally  possible  to  imagine  many  more  conditions  under  which  the  reverse 
would  be  true,  and  it  is  clear  that  if  the  forest  has  a  restraining  influence  on 
the  discharge  of  water  from  the  surface,  increasing  the  amount  of  percolation 
into  the  ground,  to  reach  the  surface  later  at  lower  levels  by  springs  and  seep- 
age, it  must,  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  reduce  the  frequency  and  violence  of 
floods. 

It  is  true,  as  stated  by  Colonel  Chittenden,  that  the  records  of  high  water 
in  most  streams  do  not  show  that  the  waters  now  rise,  under  extreme  conditions, 
higher  than  extreme  floods  which  have  occurred  in  the  past.  The  highest  re- 
corded flood  on  the  Connecticut  River  occurred  in  1S54,  long  before  the  present 
rapid  rate  of  cutting  on  its  upper  headwaters  had  begun.  Similar  facts  are  no 
doubt  true  of  other  streams.  Exceptional  conditions  are  always  likely  to  occur, 
but,  as  mentioned  above,  it  is  not  exceptional  conditions  which  should  govern  hi 
this  question.  To  do  so  is  like  arguing  against  the  benefit  of  food  for  the  rea- 
son that  a  man's  food  may  choke  him,  or  against  the  benefits  of  the  sun's  heat 
for  the  reason  that  people  occasionally  get  sunstruck. 

Colonel  Chitteuden  illustrates  the  action  of  a  forest  by  considering  an  inclined- 
plane  surface  "  practically  impervious  to  water,"  with  a  layer  of  sand  covering 
some  small  portion  of  it,  and  to  which  a  spray  of  water  is  applied.  This  com- 
parison, however,  is  not  a  correct  one,  for  the  forest  cover  does  not  rest  upon 
an  impervious  surface.  The  forest  and  its  cover  prevent  the  earth  beneath  from 
being  baked  by  the  sun  and  compacted  by  the  rain.  It  is  kept  in  a  porous  con- 
dition, ready  to  absorb  water  which  filters  down  to  it  through  the  forest  cover. 
Any  conclusions,  therefore,  drawn  from  Colonel  Chittenden's  simile  must  be 
inaccurate. 

The  author's  summary  of  this  part  of  the  discussion  is  perhaps  contained  in 
the  following  sentence:  "That  the  forest  does  promote  tributary  combinations 
there  would  seem  to  be  no  question,  and  that  it  may  therefore  aggravate  flood 
conditions  necessarily  follows.  It  is  not  contended  that  this  increase  is  ever 
very  great,  but  it  is  contended  that  forests  never  diminish  great  floods  and  that 
they  probably  do  increase  them  somewhat." 

It  would  seem  to  be  much  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  forests  generally 
diminish  floods,  although  it  is  conceivable  that  a  forest  may  slightly  increase  a 
given  flood  at  some  points. 

The  author  further  states  that  "  the  forests  are  virtually  automatic  reservoirs, 
not  subject  to  intelligent  control,  and  act  just  as  the  system  of  reservoirs  once 
proposed  by  the  French  Government  for  the  control  of  the  floods  of  the  River 
Rhone  would  have  acted  if  built.  These  reservoirs  were  to  have  open  outlets, 
not  capable  of  .being  closed,  which  were  intended  to  restrain  only  a  portion  of 
the  flow.  A  careful  study  of  their  operation  in  certain  recorded  floods  showed 
that  they  would  actually  have  produced  conditions  more  dangerous  than  would 
have  occurred  without  them." 

The  last  sentence  of  this  quotation  is  rather  conjectural  and  its  meaning 
not  quite  clear,  but  it  will  be  surprising  to  most  people  to  be  told  that  a  reser- 
voir not  subject  to  intelligent  control  does  not  regulate,  and  they  will  hardly 
accept  the  statement.  Of  course  a  lake  is  a  more  efficient  regulator  than  a 
forest,  because  if  its  level  is  rising  the  discharge  from  its  lower  end  is  always 
less  than  the  flow  into  its  upper  end,  while  in  the  case  of  the  forest,  when  its 
storage  is  exceeded,  its  level  can  not  rise,  and  it  can  simply  hinder  the  discharge 
of  later  rainwater  by  physically  obstructing  its  flow. 

The  general  aspect  of  this  part  of  the  subject  seems,  after  all,  quite  simple. 
The  forest  floor  absorbs  a  large  amount  of  water,  prevents  it  from  flowing  off 
rapidly,  and  allows  it  to  gradually  percolate  into  the  porous  ground  beneath. 
If  the  land  were  clear  of  vegetation,  or  if  it  were  cultivated,  and  especially  if 
the  slopes  were  steep,  the  erosion  would  be  greater  and  might  sooner  or  later 
leave  no  soil  upon  the  rocks  to  servo  as  n  reservoir  in  future  storms.  The 
author's  argument,  therefore,  leaves  unassailed  the  beneficial  effects  of  forests 
in  regulating  flow. 

The  fact  must  be  emphasized  that  those  who  believe  in  the  beneficial  effect 
of  forests  upon  flow  do  not  urge  the  preservation  of  the  forests  on  lands  needed 
for  agriculture.  The  beneficial  effects  of  the  forests  on  flat  lands  in  modifying 
the  violence  of  freshets  and  increasing  the  low-water  flow  is  much  less  clear 


106         FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

than  in  the  case  of  forests  in  steep  mountain  regions.  It  is  the  preservation  of 
these  last— forests  upon  land  not  suited  to  agriculture — that  is  believed  to  be 
especially  important  from  every  point  of  view. 

The  statement  of  Colonel  Chittendeu  that  the  flood  of  1908  in  the  Western 
States  would  have  been  much  greater  if  the  region  had  been  forested,  is  a  mere 
statement  of  his  own  opinion,  entirely  without  proof,  and  undoubtedly  incapable 
of  proof;  and  further,  if  the  gauge  records  given  by  him  show  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  find  evidence  in  them  to  support  the  current  theory  of  forest  influence, 
it  may  also  be  stated  that  there  is  nothing  in  them  to  support  his  own  contention. 

The  question  will,  of  course,  have  occurred  to  the  reader  of  these  remarks, 
Why  it  is  not  possible  by  long-continued  observations  of  the  height  of  floods 
on  our  rivers  to  settle  this  question  absolutely?  With  reference  to  this  some 
explanation  is  necessary.  The  flow  of  a  stream  is  the  resultant  of  a  number  of 
elements,  chief  among  which  are  rainfall,  its  distribution  throughout  the  year 
and  over  the  area  considered,  the  slope  of  the  ground,  the  area  of  forest,  culti- 
vated land,  etc.,  the  number  of  lakes  and  reservoirs,  the  temperature,  and  other 
elements.  The  chief  of  all  of  these  is  undoubtedly  the  rainfall  and  its  distri- 
bution. A  great  fall  of  rain,  long  continued,  will  probably  cause  a  great  flood 
whether  there  are  forests  or  not,  although,  as  before  explained,  there  is  abun- 
dant evidence  for  the  contention  that  the  action  of  the  forest  is  to  diminish  the 
flood.  Meteorological  phenomena  are  admittedly  variable  and  uncertain,  and, 
of  course,  they  are  entirely  incapable  of  control.  The  rainfall  varies  from  year 
to  year  in  long  cycles,  the  extent  of  the  variation  being  such  that  in  the  United 
States  it  has  generally  proved  impossible  to  determine  with  certainty  whether 
the  rainfall  over  a  given  territory  which  has  remained  in  essentially  the  same 
physical  condition,  is  increasing  or  not.  The  rainfall  at  a  given  place  may  vary 
from  30  inches  in  one  year  to  50  or  60  inches  in  the  following  year,  and  its  dis- 
tribution is  subject  to  similar  variations.  These  variable  elements  therefore 
may  mask  the  influence  of  forests  or  of  reservoirs,  but  the  important  point  is 
that  these  two  are  the  only  elements  subject  to  man's  control. 

It  is  admittedly  physically  possible,  by  reforesting  and  by  the  construction 
of  storage  reservoirs,  to  make  the  flow  of  a  given  stream  practically  uniform 
throughout  the  year,  although  to  do  so  would  in  most  cases  involve  a  pro- 
hibitive cost;  and,  moreover,  it  would  be  physically  impossible  to  regulate  a 
reservoir  and  allow  the  water  to  flow  out  of  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  produce 
this  effect,  because  the  future  can  not  be  foreseen.  Observations  of  gauge 
readings  on  rivers,  therefore,  are  inconclusive  in  themselves.  Fortunately, 
however,  we  are  not  without  valuable  evidence  on  this  point.  Mr.  M.  O.  Leigh- 
ton,  chief  hydrographer  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  has,  during 
the  past  summer,  made  an  elaborate  study  of  the  floods  of  tho  Tennessee  River, 
in  which  he  has  endeavored  to  eliminate  the  effect  of  the  rainfall  and  its  dis- 
tribution by  comparing  the  number  of  days  of  flood  with  the  number  of  indi- 
vidual rainstorms  of  sufficient  magnitude  to  produce  floods.  The  record  shows 
that  during  the  last  half  of  the  period  studied  the  number  of  days  of  flood 
was  actually  less  than  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  period,  notwithstanding  the 
deforestation  which  has  recently  taken  place.  The  rainfall,  however,  has  also 
been  less  in  the  latter  period,  and  the  results  of  Mr.  Leighton's  study  are  that 
the  diminution  of  the  rainfall  has  been  much  more  than  sufficient  to  account 
for  the  diminution  of  the  floods,  so  that  the  actual  result  is  that  the  floods 
have  been  increasing,  the  percentage  of  increase  being  1S.75  in  the  last  seventeen 
years  as  compared  with  the  seventeen  years  previous.  This  study  is  the  best 
contribution  to  the  subject  which  has  come  to  the  writer's  knowledge,  and  it 
seems  conclusive.  The  experience  in  France  also  furnishes  valuable  evidence 
in  this  matter. 

In  1857  M.  F.  Valles,  a  French  government  engineer,  published  a  work  in 
which,  and  in  some  subsequent  papers,  he  gave  almost  the  identical  arguments 
advanced  by  Colonel  Chittenden,  maintaining  that  forests  diminished  the  rain- 
fall, increased  the  floods,  and  diminished  the  supply  of  grain  by  withdrawing 
lands  from  cultivation.  He  also  maintained  that  floods  were  beneficial  by 
bringing  silt  from  the  mountain  sides  to  the  plains.  His  work,  however,  seems 
to  have  been  entirely  without  influence,  for  immediately  after  its  publication 
the  French  Government  entered  upon  a  policy  of  forest  protection  and  refor- 
estation, particularly  in  the  mountain  regions,  which  has  been  continued  up  to 
the  present  time.  Up  to  January  1,  1900,  the  State  had  acquired  over  400,000 
acres,  or  629  square  miles,  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  torrents.  Of  this  area 
440  square  miles  are  in  the  Alps,  145  square  miles  in  the  central  plateau  and 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        107 

the  Cevennes,  and  44  square  miles  in  the  Pyrenees.     The  expenditure  has  been 

as  follows : 

For  acquisition  of  land $5,200,000 

For  work  of  reforesting 4,000,000 

For  work  of  regulating 2,600,000 

Miscellaneous '.—     1,  600,  000 


Total 13.  400,  000 

and  there  is  still  to  be  expended  under  the  plan  contemplated  about  $23,000,000 
more. 

Referring  to  this  work  one  of  the  most  recent  writers  on  the  subject  (G. 
Huffel,  Economie  Forestiere,  1904)  states:  "The  role  of  the  forest  as  a  regu- 
lator of  the  flow  of  streams  may  be  considered  as  evident,  and  it  is  to-day  uni- 
versally admitted."  Under  the  able  direction  of  Prosper  Demontzey,  chief  of 
the  service  of  reforestation  in  France  for  1882  until  retired  in  1893,  and  of  his 
predecessors,  much  has  been  accomplished,  and  some  formerly  very  destructive 
torrents  have  been  reduced  to  inoffensive  streams  by  reforestation  and  regula- 
tion, much  more  being  expended  for  reforestation  than  for  regulation,  as  above 
shown.  Perhaps  it  will  now  be  argued  that  the  good  results  that  have  fol- 
lowed have  been  due  entirely  to  the  regulation  and  not  to  the  reforestation,  but 
that  is  not  the  view  of  the  French  engineers. 

At  first  there  was  great  opposition  to  he  French  governmental  policy  on  the 
part  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  mountain  districts,  and  in  1864  there  were  riots 
in  some  places.  This  opposition,  however,  has  entirely  subsided,  the  inhabitants 
now  cooperate  heartily  with  the  Government,  even  petitioning  to  have  it  extend 
its  work,  and  in  some  cases  even  giving  portions  of  their  lands  on  the  mountain 
sides  without  compensation. 

When  it  comes  to  the  question  of  extreme  droughts,  Colonel  Chittenden  takes 
a  curiously  contradictory  position  to  the  one  which  he  takes  in  considering  the 
matter  of  floods.  Regarding  the  latter,  it  will  be  remembered,  he  considers  that 
the  forests  may  cause  a  combination  of  the  highest  floods  arising  simulta- 
neously from  different  tributaries :  with  reference  to  droughts,  however,  he 
assumes  just  the  reverse,  namely,  that  the  extreme  low  water  on  different  tribu- 
taries will  not  occur  simultaneously.  It  seems  clear  that  the  extreme  combina- 
tion is  as  likely  to  occur  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

He  admits  "that,  as  a  general  rule,  springs  and  little  streams  dry  up  more 
completely  than  when  forests  covered  the  country,"  but  he  argues  that,  since 
each  spring  is  small,  their  drying  up  will  have  little  effect  upon  the  main 
stream,  the  flow  of  which  will  be  kept  up,  if  the  region  is  deforested,  by  the 
rapid  discharge,  over  the  surface,  of  the  water  from  summer  showers,  which 
will  occur,  first  on  one  tributary  and  then  on  another,  in  such  a  way  as  to  fur- 
nish to  the  main  stream  always  a  low-water  flow  greater  than  if  the  springs 
could  all  be  kept  np.  If  his  argument  be  carried  to  the  very  common  case  where 
no  rain  falls  upon  a  given  drainage  basin  for  weeks,  or  for  a  much  longer  time 
than  it  takes  for  a  drop  of  water  to  flow  from  the  extreme  source  to  the  mouth, 
it  would  seem  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  there  would  be  no  flow  at  all  in 
the  stream.  In*  other  words,  the  author  would  ha-ve  the  mills  at  Lawrence  and 
Lowell  depend  for  their  summer  flow,  not  upon  keeping  up  the  "  springs  and 
little  streams"  so  far  as  possible  by  increasing  through  the  effect  of  forests  the 
percolation  into  the  ground,  but  .would  have  these  mills  trust  to  luck  that  the 
summer  showers  would  be  so  distributed  over  the  different  tributary  basins 
that  when  one  was  low  others  would  be  high,  and  he  maintains  that  in  this 
way  the  low  water  would  be  greater  than  if  all  the  little  springs  were  kept  up. 
This  would,  of  course,  require  most  intelligent  planning  on  the  part  of  Jupiter 
Pluvins,  for  it  would  not  do  to  have  these  summer  showers,  which  are  sup- 
posed to  flow  rapidly  from  the  surface,  inaccurately  timed  or  distributed  over 
the  basin.  It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  pursue  this  suggestion  further. 

Even  a  large  drainage  area,  say  10,000  square  miles,  may  well  have  its  main 
stream  possess  a  length  from  extremest  source  to  mouth,  measured  on  the 
stream,  of  considerably  less  than  300  miles.  If  the  average  velocity  of  the 
stream  is  1  mile  an  hour,  which  is  low.  it  would  take  less  than  two  weeks  for 
a  drop  of  water  to  pass  from  the  extremest  source  to  the  mouth.  Now,  even  in 
districts  which  have  a  summer  rainfall,  it  frequently  happens  that  even  an  area 
as  large  as  that  mentioned  is  without  rain  in  any  part  of  it  for  months  at  a 
time,  under  which  condition,  if  the  writer  understands  Colonel  Chittenden's 
theory  and  his  admission,  even  such  a  large  stream  would  practically  dry  up. 


108         FOEEST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PEOTECTION    OF    WATEESHEDS. 

It  would  seem  to  be  much  more  reasonable  to  depend  upon  some  means  of  keep- 
ing up  the  springs  and  small  streams  rather  than  upon  the  equal  distribution 
of  surface  waters  of  the  summer  showers  from  deforested  areas. 

Moreover,  it  is  not  evident  why,  even  in  a  small  stream,  a  uniform  flow  is 
any  less  desirable  than  an  intermittent  flow.  Of  course,  as  is  well  known,  the 
larger  the  stream  the  greater  the  low-water  flow  per  square  mile,  other  things 
being  equal,  for  the  very  reason  that  the  low-water  flow  on  all  tributaries  will 
not  occur  at  the  same  time,  no  doubt  partly  owing  to  local  rains.  A  precisely 
similar  remark  applies  to  the  flood  discharge,  which  is  less  per  square  mile  on 
large  watersheds  than  on  small  ones,  because  the  maximum  discharge  from 
different  tributaries  will  not  occur  at  the  same  time.  Colonel  Chittenden,  there- 
fore, seems  here  inconsistent.  In  discussing  floods  he  considers  an  extreme 
condition  in  which  the  floods  from  various  tributaries  arrive  simultaneously  at 
a  given  point,  and  from  this  he  argues  that  forests  increase  the  violence  of 
floods.  In  the  case  of  extreme  drouths,  however,  he  considers  the  cas"e,  not 
where  the  low-water  flow  from  various  tributaries  arrive  simultaneously  at  a 
given  point,  but,  on  the  contrary,  where  comparatively  high  water  from  one 
arrives  at  the  same  time  as  the  low  water  from  another. 

With  reference  to  the  effect  of  forests  upon  snow  melting,  Colonel  Chittenden 
states  that  "  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the  effect  of  forests  upon  the  run-off 
from  snow  is  inevitably  to  increase  its  intensity.'' 

He  argues  that  the  snow  does  not  drift  at  all  in  the  forests,  but  that  great 
drifts  form  on  open  ground ;  that  the  snow  begins  to  melt  over  open  ground 
earlier  than  in  the  forests,  and  that  the  drifts  on  open  ground  serve  as  reservoirs 
to  feed  the  streams,  lasting  much  longer  than  the  snow  in  the  forests ;  that  the 
snow  melting*  in  the  forests  does  not  sink  into  the  ground,  but  into  the  snow 
itself,  which  becomes  saturated,  until  a  warm  rain  carries  off  the  whole  mass 
of  snow  hi  a  freshet.  He  says,  referring  to  the  snow  in  the  forest :  "  The  water 
from  the  first  melting  from  the  snow  blanket  does  not  sink  into  the  ground,  but 
into  the  snow  itself.  Snow  is  like  a  sponge;  a  panful  will  shrink  to  one-fourth 
of  its  volume  or  less  before  any  free  water  appears." 

This  argument  contains  a  number  of  errors  and  inconsistencies.  In  the  first 
place,  the  snow  does  drift  in  the  forest,  although  not  to  the  same  extent  as  in 
the  open.  Colonel  Chittenden  admits  that  the  snow  blanket  lasts  longer  in  the 
forests  than  in  the  open,  except  for  the  drifts.  It  is  the  present  writer's  experi- 
ence, however,  that  the  snow  in  the  forests  lasts  considerably  longer  than  even 
the  drifts  in  the  open,  although  this  may  not  be  true  in  the  case  of  very  high 
altitudes.  The  snow  in  the  drifts  on  or  near  the  summit  of  Mount  Blanc,  of 
course,  lasts  longer  th;m  the  snow  in  the  forests  below,  because  the  top  is  in  a 
region  of  perpetual  snow.  Obviously  this  is  not  the  condition  to  be  considered 
in  the  present  instance.  But  Colonel  Chitteuden  ignores  the  fact  that  under 
the  snow  the  ground  in  the  forest  is  warmer  than  the  ground  in  the  open  and 
that  the  snow  blanket  melts  at  the  bottom  rather  than  at  the  top.  Frequently 
th3,  ground  in  the  forest  does  not  freeze  at  all  and  therefore  it  is  in  a  better 
condition  to  absorb  the  melted  snow  than  the  ground  in  the  open.  But  even  if 
the  snow  blanket  in  the  woods  absorbs,  as  he  thinks,  the  water  from  its  own 
melting  under  the  sun's  rays,  preventing  it  from  percolating  into  the  ground, 
why  do  not  the  large  drifts  in. the  open,  which  he  says  form  the  main  reservoirs 
of  the  streams,  also  absorb  their  own  water  and  prevent  it  from  running  off? 

The  fallacy  of  Colonel  Chittenden's  arguments  in  this  respect  is  obvious. 
It  is,  of  course,  true  that  if  a  warm  rain  comes  upon  the  suow  blanket  in  the 
woods,  carrying  it  off  in  a  short  time,  the  resulting  flood  may  be  greater  than  if 
the  forest  had  not  been  there  to  retain  the  snow ;  but  it  is  equally  clear  that  in 
the  latter  case  the  earlier  spring  floods  would  have  been  increased.  If  a  given 
.•imount  of  snow  has  to  be  carried  off  into  the  streams,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
flow  of  the  streams  will  be  more  regular  if  the  period  of  melting  is  extended, 
and  this  is  the  effect  of  the  forests. 

A  further  instance  of  illogical  reasoning  is  found  in  Colonel  Chittenden's 
reference  to  the  great  floods  which  occurred  in  the  State  of  Washington.  He 
says :  "  The  great  flood  of  1900  in  this  section  was  a  perfect  demonstration  not 
only  of -the  vast  intensifying  effects  of  forests  upon  floods  due  to  snow  melting, 
but  of  the  utter  helplessness  of  the  forest  bed,  when  saturated  with  long  rains, 
to  restrain  floods."  It  will  be  clear,  however,  upon  reflection,  that  this  flood  is 
no  demonstration  of  any  "  intensifying  effect."  It  simply  demonstrates  that 
there  may  be  heavy  floods  from  forested  areas.  If  those  forests  were  cut  down, 
That  same  flood  might,  and  probably  would,  have  been  much  more  violent. 
Colonel  Chitteuden  here  apparently  forgets  the  difficulties  in  studying  this 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        109 

problem  which  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  effect  of  the  forests  can  not  be  sep- 
arated from  the  other  elements  entering  into  the  problem. 

Similarly  inconclusive  is  the  statement  about  the  flood  of  the  American  river 
compared  with  Puta  Creek  in  California.  Watersheds  differ  not  alone  as  re- 
gards forests,  but  in  other  respects.  The  facts  stated  simply  seem  to  show  that 
in  this  case  the  forests  did  not  regulate  its-flow  to  an  extent  sufficient  to  coun- 
terbalance other  factors.  For  instance,  if  the  writer  is  correctly  informed,  the 
slopes  of  the  Sierras  are  steeper  than  those  of  the  coast  range.  Again,  the 
shape  of  the  drainage  area  is  a  matter  of  considerable  importance  with  reference 
to  the  maximum  rise  of  water  at  a  given  point. 

The  writer  has  not  had  the  opportunity  to  study  to  any  extent  the  conditions 
in  the  Rocky  Mountains,  but  he  observes  that  Prof.  L.  G.  Carpenter,  of  the  Col- 
orado State  Agricultural  College — than  whom  there  is  no  more  competent  au- 
thority— in  his  paper  on  "  Forest  and  snow "  comes  to  the  conclusion  that 
(a)  *  *  *  "  the  greater  the  amount  of  forest  cover  the  less  violent  the  daily 
fluctuation,  the  more  uniform  the  flow  throughout  the  day  and  throughout  the 
season  and  the  later  the  stream  maintains  its  flow.  (&)  The  loss  of  the  forest 
cover  means  more  violent  fluctuation  during  the  day,  greater  difficulty  in  regu- 
lating the  head  gates  and  keeping  a  uniform  flow  in  ditches,  and 'hence  an 
additional  difficulty  in  the  economic  distribution  of  water;  also  the  water  runs 
off  sooner,  hence  the  streams  drop  earlier  in  the  summer,  and,  on  account  of  the 
lessening  of  the  springs,  the  smaller  is  the  winter  flow,  (c)  The  preservation 
of  the  forest  is  an  absolute  necessity  for  the  interest  of  irrigated  agriculture." 

Colonel  Chittenden,  however,  after  devoting  so  much  space  to  considering  the 
effects  of  forests  upon  extremes  of  flow,  does  not  on  the  whole  take  his  own 
arguments  seriously,  for  later  on  he  says :  "  In  the  records  of  precipitation, 
wherever  they  exist,  will  be  found  a  full  and  complete  explanation  of  every  one 
of  the  floods  that  have  seemed  unusually  frequent  and  severe  in  recent  years." 
After  citing  the  conditions,  he  goes  on  to  say :  "  Similar  conditions  prevail  in 
every  great  flood,  and  the  true  explanation  is  found  in  them  and  not  at  all  in 
the  presence  or  absence  of  forests  on  the  watersheds." 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  fact  that  the  amount  and  distribu- 
tion of  rainfall  are  the  most  important  factors  affecting  the  flow  of  streams, 
yet  it  is  quite  unreasonable  to  conclude  that  on  that  account  the  forests  have 
no  effect  at  all. 

These  quotations  are  cited,  however,  to  show  the  apparent  contradictions  in 
Colonel  Chittenden's  arguments. 

It  would'  take  too  long  to  analyze  in  detail  the  remainder  of  Colonel  Chit- 
tenden's paper  and  to  criticize  his  many  statements.  If  his  views,  however, 
have  weight,  attention  should  be  called  to  one  statement  which  he  makes  with 
reference  to  erosion.  He  states  (page  955  et  seq. )  that  the  sediment  carried 
into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  by  the  Mississippi  "  all  comes  from  the  uplands  far 
;ind  near,  but  particularly  from  the  more  remote  and  hilly  regions.  This  load 
is  in  the  nature  of  through  traffic.  The  local  freight  picked  up  from  a  caving 
bank  is  mainly  discharged  at  the  next  station.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  if  the 
banks  of  a  stream  were  revetted  from  the  Gulf  to  Pittsburg,  the  Falls  of  St. 
Anthony  and  the  mouth  of  the  Yellowstone,  the  quantity  of  sediment  passing 
into  the  Gulf  would  not  be  diminished  a  particle." 

As  the  quantity  of  sediment  carried  into  the  Gulf  each  year  is  exceedingly 
large.  Colonel  Chittenden  admits  the  great  erosion  from  the  mountain  slopes. 
\Ve  do  not  agree  with  him,  however,  in  the  statement  quoted.  A  river  picks 
up  sediment  where  the  velocity  of  the  water  and  the  size  of  the  grains  of  sedi- 
ment admit,  and  a  reduction  of  velocity  causes  the  deposition  of  sediment,  be- 
ginning with  the  heaviest  particles.  The  river  cuts  away  a  bank  here  and  de- 
posits a  bar  there,  and  much  of  its  load  is,  as  Colonel  Chittenden  states,  in  the 
nature  of  local  freight.  The  important  point,  however,  is  that  all  this  freight 
is  moving  downstream,  and  it  would  seem  scarcely  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
under  this  continual  movement  downstream  the  only  silt  to  find  its  way  into 
the  Gulf  .is  that  which  comes  from  the  extreme  sources. 

In  contradiction  to  the  above  statements.  Colonel  Chittenden  says:  "It  is 
incontestably  true  that  whatever  restraining  effect  forests  have  upon  run-off  is 
greater  upon  the  lowlands  than  upon  steep  mountain  sides."  This  is  a  good 
illustration  of  the  character  of  statement  with  which  this  paper  abounds,  posi- 
tive statements  given  entirely  without  proof  and  in  contradiction  to  all  experi- 
ence and  to  the  best  authorities.  It  would  seem  to  be  reasonably  clear  that 
since  on  steep  slopes  there  is  more  tendency  for  the  water  to  run  off  than  on 
moderate  slopes  and  flat  land,  whatever  restraining  effect  the  forest  exerts 


110        FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

would  be  greater  on  steep  slopes  than  elsewhere.  Seeing  that  if  the  land  were 
absolutely  level  there  would  be  no  tendency  at  all  for  the  water  to  run  off,  so 
that  it  would  all  either  percolate  or  be  absorbed,  or  evaporate,  and  seeing  that 
flat  lands  upon  which  forests  will  grow  are  generally  suitable  and  must  sooner 
or  later  be  used  for  cultivation,  and  seeing,  also,  that  Colonel  Chittenden  has 
asserted  that  newly  plowed  laud  has  probably  a  retentive  capacity  greater  than 
the  forest  ground,  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  some  of  these  statements  will  be 
seen. 

In  the  recent  work  of  Huff  el,  "  Ecoiioinie  Forestiere,"  for  example,  a  detailed 
discussion  of  many  of  these  points  will  be  found,  and  the  fallacy  of  Colonel 
Chittenden's  last  remark  above  quoted  is  there  abundantly  shown. 

Colonel  Chittenden  refers  to  some  foreign  publications,  particularly  to  the 
reports  of  the  Tenth  International  Navigation  Congress,  held  at  Milan,  in  1905. 
With  reference  to  this  he  says :  "  While  all  the  writers  heartily  favored  forest 
culture  the  opinion  was  practically  unanimous  that  forests  exert  no  appreciable 
influence  on  the  extremes  of  flow  in  rivers."  The  important  part  of  this  quota- 
tion is  the  first  clause,  and  not  the  last.  It  is  true,  and  it  is  a  very  significant 
fact,  that  all  the  writers  urged  the  preservation  of  the  forests  on  the  mountain 
sides,  or  precisely  what  is  contemplated  by  the  White  Mounta in-Southern 
Appalachian  bill.  As  foreign  testimony  may  be  of  value  in  this  connection,  as 
showing  the  dependence  of  the  interests  of  navigation  upon  the  preservation  of 
the  forests,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  give  extracts  from  some  of  these  reports.0 

Mr.  Lafosse,  the  French  delegate,  says : 

"  If  the  destruction  of  forests  is  to  be  deplored  it  is  most  of  all  on  the  moun- 
tain that  the  cutting  away  of  timber  is  to  be  feared.  It  is  not  alone  the  supply  of  % 
the  springs  and  the  discharge  of  the  streams  which  are  in  danger ;  it  is  the  very 
existence  of  the  rivers  themselves.     The  stream  which  can  be  utilized  disap- 
pears, to  give  place  to  the  devastating  torrent. 

"  The  soil  swept  bare  of  its  forests,  exhausted  by  the  abuses  of  \grazing,  loses 
quickly  its  vegetable  stratum.  Washed  periodically,  and  carried  away  by  melt- 
ing snow  and  summer  storms,  it  is  soon  disaggregated.  The  waters  run  toward 
the  low  points,  rolling  before  them  gravel  and  boulders,  and  even  tearing  out 
loose  sections  of  rock.  A  thousand  rivulets  cut  out  beds,  the  torrent  is  formed. 
Scours  begin,  the  banks  are  broken  down,  and  a  mass  of  mud,  stones,  and  rocks 
invades  the  valley,  destroying  everything  as  it  passes." 

Mr.  Wolfshiitz,  a  delegate  from  Austria,  while  admitting  that  excessive  floods 
are  not  appreciably  checked  by  forests,  writes  as  follows: 

"  For  economical  reasons  reaft'orestations  will  have  to  be  confined  to  the 
steeper  mountain  slopes,  'which  are  of  little  use  for  other  cultivation.  Here 
the  forest  will  have  a  beneficial  influence  by  making  the  soil  firmer  and  more 
compact  and  by  preventing  erosion  and  washing  down,  and  thus  any  excessive 
alteration  and  the  formation  of  detritus,  which  would  shoal  and  silt  up  the 
water  courses.  Such  forests  further  retard  the  melting  of  the  snows  in  spring 
and  lessen  the  violence  of  spring  high  water.  It  is  thus  advisable  in  the 
interests  of  navigation  to  spare  and  to  attend  to  the  forest.  There  is  no  simpler, 
cheaper,  nor  more  effective  means  for  securing  the  mountain  slopes  and  for 
keeping  the  pebble  shoals  down.  In  this  respect,  forests  have  incoutestably  had 
a  beneficial  influence  upon  the  floods  of  the  large  rivers.  Beyond  this,  however, 
no  further  measurable  influence  upon  the  high  waters  of  rivers  can  be  credited 
to  them. 

"As  regards  the  occurrence  of  high  floods  in  the  large  rivers,  the  forests 
can  not  have  any  noteworthy  influence.  As  regards  the  increase  in  the 
ground-water  level  and  in  the  replenishment  of  springs,  the  forests  have,  in  the 
plains,  no  more  influence  than  the  open  ground,  and  it  is  only  in  the  mountains 
that  this  action  can  be  rated  at  any  higher  figure.  In  the  mountains,  however, 
the  main  office  of  the  woods  will  be  to  prevent  the  denudation  and  erosion  of 
the  surface,  the  formation  of  detritus,  and  the  silting  up  of  the  river  beds  with 
mud,  sand,  and  pebbles." 

Mr.  Riedel,  of  Vienna,  is  very  emphatic  as  to  the  benefits  of  forests.  He 
shows  the  terrible  results  which  have  been  brought  about  by  their  destruction 
in  various  parts  of  Europe,  and  with  reference  to  Germany  states  that  "  in 
Germany,  also,  reasonable  bounds  were  not  everywhere  kept  to,  and  the  effects 
of  the  progressing  deforestation  made  themselves  apparent  on  the  one  hand  in 
scarcity  of  timber  and  on  the  other  in  the  impoverishment  of  pereuniel 


aThe  translations  were  made  abroad  and  the  quotations  are  given  just  as 
printed. 


FOREST  LANDS  FOE,   THE    PEOTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        Ill 

springs  and  the  alarming  lowering  of  the  mean  water  level  of  German  rivers, 
and  not  less  so  in  a  gradual  increase  in  the  dryness  of  the  ground,  caused  by 
the  fall  of  the  level  of  the  underground  waters. 

"  The  unquestioned  circumstance,  that  a  large  number  of  rivers  now  carry 
down  more  loose  material  than  formerly,  is  a  consequence  of  the  extensive 
denudation  and  careless  clearing  of  the  plantations.  The  slopes  of  the  hills 
lose  a  large  part  of  their  fruitful  soil,  and  in  many  cases  earth  slides  and  even 
extensive  subsidences  of  whole  slopes  take  place,  while  considerable  areas  of 
ground  in  the  valleys  are  smothered  up  and  rendered  useless. 

"  The  loose  material  which  the  tributary  brooks  carry  into  the  main  streams 
ceases  to  be  carried  onward  as  the  declivity  becomes  fess  steep,  and  in  conse- 
quence fills  up  their  beds.  The  streams  are  then  obliged  to  seek  out  new 
courses,  by  which  the  most  fruitful  ground  is  devastated  and  the  whole  bed  of 
the  valley  is  gradually  transformed  into  a  barren  layer  of  loose  stones.  This 
drawback  affects  not  only  the  mountain  dwellers,  but,  in  so  far  as  the  waters 
are  not  able  to  deposit  their  loose  suspended  material  in  large  basins  on  the 
way,  the  population  of  the  lower-lying  and  well-tilled  valleys  also.  Here  the 
damages  further  include  the  circumstance  that,  by  reason  of  the  often  elevated 
position  of  the  river»bed,  overflow  waters  are  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of. 

"  Proofs  of  the  foregoing,  and  especially  of  the  last-mentioned  circumstance, 
are  afforded  by  a  large  number  of  river  valleys.  This  Condition  of  things  is 
of  importance  in  the  cases  of  those  river  or  stream  channels  which  by  the 
formation  of  weirs  are  to  be  made  serviceable  for  purposes  of  inland  naviga- 
tion, earth  slides,  damages  to  river  banks,  and  inundations  did  not  take  place, 
though  at  a  distance  from  the  channel,  lie  at  a  lower  level  than  the  latter,  are 
swamped  to  the  most  damaging  extent. 

"  The  foregoing  is  not  intended  to  convey  the  idea  that  previous  to  deforesta- 
tion, earth  slides,  damages  to  river  banks,  and  inundations  did  not  take  place, 
but  it  is  intended  to  show  that  since  the  decrease  of  the  forests  all  these  dis- 
advantages have  increased  to  a  serious  and  disquieting  degree." 

Mr.  Lauda,  of  Vienna,  compares  two  similar  watersheds  of  about  the  same 
area  in  Austria,  one  being  much  more  heavily  wooded  than  the  other.  He 
thinks  the  forests  may  not  exert  much  influence  in  high  floods,  but  concludes  as 
follows : 

"  If,  now,  the  fliial  judgment  on  the  subject  of  the  influence  of  forests  on  the 
regimen  of  streams  be  unfavorable  to  the  forests  to  this  extent,  that  there  are 
denied  to  it  certain  of  the  properties  attributed  to  it  generally,  it  does  not  follow 
from  this  that  it  is  necessary  to  oppose  the  rewooding  of  arid  surfaces,  the  re- 
planting of  the  basins  of  streams,  or  the  maintenance  of  planations  of  trees. 
The  general  utility  of  the  forest  is  so  well  settled,  the  extraordinary  apprecia- 
tion in  which  it  is  held,  as  a  means  of  protecting  the  soil  against  landslides,  is 
so  firmly  established,  its  great  advantageousness,  especially  for  the  spring  dis- 
trict, in  holding  back  earth  thrusts  and  reducing  the  amount  of  sediment  car- 
ried by  rivers  so  important,  that  these  reasons  alone  justify  fully  the  greatest 
possible  promotion  of  forest  culture." 

Mr.  Ponti,  of  Italy,  seems  to  have  no  doubt  that  forests  on  steep  slopes  are 
useful  in  the  interests  of  navigation.  He  says : 

"  In  Sicily,  the  consequence  of  cutting  away  the  forests  on  a  vast  scale  in 
the  province  of  Messina  has  been  also  to  raise  sensibly  the  bed  of  the  streams, 
and  many  of  these  beds  are  now  above  the  adjoining  fields." 

Mr.  Keller,  of  Austria,  thinks  that  forests  affect  the  regimen  and  discharge 
of  rivers  only  to  a  slight  extent  except  in  mountainous  regions,  regarding 
which  he  says : 

"  However,  there  is  no  doubt  that  hi  many  cases  deforestation  has  contrib- 
uted to  the  erosion  of  the  mountains  and  to  the  deposit  of  their  soil  at  their 
foot,  as  also  to  an  unfavorable  change  in  the  conditions  of  flow  and  drainage 
of  the  waters.  This  remark  applies  equally  to  the  regions  of  high  mountain 
ranges  as  to  the  Mediterranean  basin.  There  are  also  the  formation  of  a 
cohesive  soil  takes  too  long  to  make  good  the  loss  caused  by  a  sudden  shower." 

Mr.  Lokhtine,  of  Prussia,  does  not  discuss  particularly  the  effect  of  moun- 
tain forests,  but  among  his  conclusions  is  the  following: 

"(1)  Forests  form  a  beneflcieut  factor,  acting  favorably  on  the  general  abun- 
dance of  water  in  a  country,  and  particularly  on  the  supply  of  streams  and 
rivers.  That  is  why  the  destruction  of  forests  should  be  considered  as  hurtfu! 
and  dangerous." 

These  extracts  show  that  foreign  authorities  are  unanimous  as  to  the  benefits 
of  forests  on  the  mountains  upon  the  liow  of  streams  and  the  interests  of 
navigation. 


112         FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

It  will  not  be  attempted  to  discuss  Colouel  Chittendeu's  remarks  with  refer- 
ence to  reservoirs,  as  these  are  not  here  under  consideration. 

Finally,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  acquirement  by  the  Government  of 
forest  reserves  in  the  Appalachian  and  White  Mountains  will  be  of  benefit  to 
the  navigation  of  the  streams  not  simply  in  proportion  to  the  area  of  these 
reserves.  By  acquiring  a  foothold,  the  Forest  Service  will  be  able  to  demon- 
strate to  owners  of  adjoining  tracts  the  benefits  of  wise  forest  management, 
and  will  be  able  to  cooperate  with  them  on  the  ground  in  using  similar  methods 
in  their  own  forests.  The  Government,  also,  for  the  same  reason  will  be  able 
to  restrict  forest  fires,  not  only  on  the  government  reserves  but  on  private 
lands.  The  effect  of  the  government  reserves,  therefore,  will  be  much  larger 
than  in  proportion  to  their  area,  and  by  wise  management  and  by  cooperation 
with  private  owners  not  only  will  erosion  of  the  ground  be  prevented  and  the 
flow  of  the  streams  favorably  affected,  but  the  timber  supply  will  be  conserved. 

UNITED  STATES  ENGINEER  OFFICE, 

Seattle,  Wash.,  January  12,  190!). 

Hon.  CHARLES  F.  SCOTT,  » 

Chairman  Committee  on  Agriculture, 

House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Your  letter  of  the  4th  instant,  inclosing  a  paper ,by  Dr.  George 
F.  Swain,  with  a  request  for  my  opinion  thereon,  has  only  just  arrived,  the 
delay  being  doubtless  due  to  the  heavy  weather  prevailing  along  the  Northern 
Pacific  roads. 

As  you  are  doubtless  anxious  for  an  early  reply,  I  will  dictnte  one  at  once, 
without  taking  time  for  a  more  careful  consideration  of  Doctor  Swafn's  paper. 
I  therefore  ask  your  indulgence  with  the  somewhat  disjointed  and  fragmentary 
character  of  my  reply.  I  should  be  glad  to  put  it  in  better  form. 

Taking  up  seriatim  Doctor  Swain's  criticisms,  I  note  that  in  the  first  place 
he  says  "  the  great  majority  of  engineers  conversant  with  the  subject  believe 
that  forests  act  as  equalizers  of  stream  flow."  This  statement  would  be  more 
correct  if  he  said  the  great  majority  of  engineers  not*  conversant  with  the 
subject;  i.  e.,  with  the  subject  of  stream  flow  in  our  navigable  rivers.  I  do  not 
myself  know  a  single  hydraulic  engineer  of  wide  experience  in  these  matters 
who  believes  that  forests  have  any  particular  effect  in  diminishing  great  floods 
or  in  preventing  extreme  low  waters.  I  believe  this  also  to  be  the  opinion  of 
foreign  engineers.  There  is  a  very  wide  sentiment  in  both  countries  to  the 
contrary,  but  this  sentiment  is  very  largely  explained  by  the  persistent  argu- 
ments of  forestry  advocates,  to  which  hydraulic  engineers  take  no  particular 
exception,  because  they  do  not  wish  to  go  on  record  as  opposed  to  forestry 
extension. 

In  this  connection  I  will  pass  to  the  last  portion  of  Doctor  Swain's  paper,  in 
reference  to  foreign  opinion  on  this  subject.  I  have  searched  this  matter  a 
great  deal,  and  I  believe  that  I  am  entirely  correct  in  saying  that  the  schools 
of  thought  on  the  subject  in  Europe  may  be  divided  into  forestry  advocates 
and  river  engineers.  I  am  unable  to  find  among  the  latter  any  that  advocate 
forests  as  a  corrective  for  the  extremes  of  flow  in  our  rivers.  Doctor  Swain 
cites  the  report  of  M.  F.  Valle  as  having  made  no  impression  at  the  time.  I 
am  unable  to  say  what  impression  it  had,  but  the  report  itself  is  a  very  forcible 
one,  and  cites  the  opinion  of  a  number  of  other  hydraulic  engineers  of  promi- 
nence who  coincide  with  M.  F.  Valle's  views.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  sub- 
ject was  under  careful  discussion  at  that  time,  and  there  were  different  views, 
just  as  there  are  to-day  upon  the  subject.  Hut  when  it  caine  to  the  question 
of  practical  work  the  French  engineers  summarily  rejected  the  idea  that  the 
forests  could  be  relied  upon  in  any  degree  to  simplify  the  problems  of  floods  in 
French  rivers. 

In  the  exceedingly  elaborate  investigation  instituted  by  Napoleon  III,  as  a 
result  of  the  extraordinary  flood  of  1856,  this  very  matter  was  brought  forward 
by  forestry  advocates  and  was  considered  by  the  engineers.  Their  finding  was 
that  whatever  value  forests  might  have  locally  in  preventing  erosion  of  steep 
slopes,  they  could  not  be  relied  upon  in  any  degree  to  diminish  the  great  floods 
from  which  France  had  just  been  suffering,  and  that  any  measures  which 
might  be  taken  in  the  line  of  reforestation  would  have  no  appreciable  effect. 
Their  report  cited  a  very  elaborate  and  exhaustive  work  upon  the  floods  of  French 
rivers,  going  back  over  six  hundred  years,  in  which  it  was  conclusively  shown 
that  former  floods  were  larger  than  those  at  the  present  time,  the  progressive 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        113 

diminution  of  the  floods  in  the  river  Seine  with  the  settlement  of  the  country 
being  particularly  noticeable.  This  practical  example  of  what  the  real  technical 
thought  of  river  engineers  on  this  subject  was  has  been  followed  ever  since. 
So  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  project  of  river  improvement,  either  for  flood  pro- 
tection or  low  water  in  their  navigable  rivers,  has  embraced  reforestation  as  an 
essential  part,  or  even  any  part  at  all. 

Doctor  Swain  quotes  in  extenso  from  the  papers  read  before  the  Milan  con- 
gress, but  a  careful  reading  of  these  papers  will  show  that  the  arguments  in 
favor  of  forests  are  based,  in  great  part,  upon  the  question  of  erosion  and  the 
torrential  flow  of  mountain  streams.  They  do  not  touch  the  question  of  control 
of  our  great  rivers.  Doctor  Swain's  reference  to  M.  Lauda's  report  upon  this 
subject  is  certainly  not  indicative  of  that  author's  views,  as  your  committee 
can  readily  see  from  reading  the  inclosed  translation  of  his  report  upon*the 
great  flood  of  the  Danube  in  1899.  M.  Lauda  makes  it  very  clear  that  forests 
on  that  watershed  had  no  appreciable  influence  in  diminishing  the  flood ;  in  fact, 
the  largest  run-off  came  from  those  very  portions  which  were  most  heavily 
wooded. 

Summing  up  this  particular  matter,  it  is  my  opinion  that  the  views  of  river 
engineers  may  be  correctly  expressed  as  follows :  That  they  are  heartily  in 
favor  of  the  creation  of  forests  for  the  preservation  of  our  timber  supply  and, 
possibly,  also  in  the  prevention  of  erosion  in  particular  stiuations,  but  they 
have  no  faith  whatever  in  the  efficacy  of  forests  to  simplify  the  problems  of 
river  control. 

I  now  take  up  the  point  of  which  considerable  is  made  by  the  forestry  advo- 
cates, and  that  is  that  it  is  not  the  extreme  floods  and  low  waters  that  are  of 
so  much  importance  as  the  frequency  of  moderate  floods.  Doctor  Swain  calls 
these  extreme  conditions  "  freaks."  I  am  quite  unable  to  appreciate  the  force 
of  this  argument  in  even  the  smallest  degree  and  I  will  try  to  make  my  reasons 
therefor  clear  to  you.  It  must  necessarily  be  the  extreme  conditions  which  engi- 
neers have  to  consider  in  the  control  of  our  rivers.  Take  the  city  of  Pittsburg, 
for  example.  That  city  could  not  be  satisfied  with  any  measure  of  flood  control 
which  does  not  take  into  account  the  great  floods.  The  forestry  advocates 
might  say  to  that  city,  if  you  will  give  us  an  appropriation  to  reforest  the 
Monongahela  watershed,  we  can  assure  you  that  the  average  moderate  floods 
of  that  river  will  be  diminished  in  height  and  in  frequency  by  10  or  15  per  cent 
of  what  they  are  at  the  present  time,  and  you  can  then  get  along  by  constructing 
protection  works  that  will  meet  this  new  condition,  letting  the  "  freaks  "  when 
they  come  alojig,  take  care  of  themselves.  Now,  any  such  proposition  as  this  is 
manifestly  absurd,  and  the  city  would  at  once  reply  that  the  great  damage 
which  has  been  done  in  its  past  history,  the  great  inconvenience  suffered,  have 
come  from  these  particular  extreme  floods,  which  are  denominated  "  freaks." 
The  city  would  say  that  its  people  would  not  be  satisfied  with  any  scheme  of 
protection  that  did  not  provide  for  these  conditions.  Inquiring  of  the  forestry 
advocates  as  to  whether  they  could  have  any  assurance  that  these  "  freaks  " 
could  be  eliminated  by  reforestation,  the  reply  must  inevitably  be  that  they 
could  not.  The  city  would  then  probably  say,  "  It  seems  to  us  that  it  would  be 
better  to  take  this  extra  money  for  reforestation  and  add  it  to  our  protection 
works  and  make  these  strong  enough  and  high  enough  to  keep  the  '  freaks '  out. 
If  we  can  be  assured  of  local  protection  against  the  extreme  floods,  we  shall 
not  worry  very  much  about  those  that  are  smaller;  they  may  cause  some 
inconvenience,  but  we  will  worry  along  with  them  very  well." 

In  like  manner  exactly  the  same  reply  must  be  given  to  any  attempt  to  apply 
this  agreement  to  the  levees  of  the  Mississippi  River  and  also  to  low-water 
navigation  of  our  streams.  The  reply  of  the  boatmen  must  inevitably  be  that 
any  scheme  of  river  control  must  include  the  "freak"  years;  that  they  do  not 
want  their  boats  laid  up  every  now  and  then,  simply  because  an  exceptional 
year  comes  along  which  pulls  the  water  down  lower  than  the  "  mean  "  of  a 
certain  number  of  years.  They  say  that  if  provision  is  made  for  these  extreme 
low  years  all  the  others  will  take  care  of  themselves. 

I  think  that  any  practical  man  must  take  this  view  of  the  case,  that  in  our 
problems  of  river  control  it  is  the  extremes  that  must  govern;  and  it  is  now 
admitted,  particularly  since  my  paper  appeared,  that  forestry  has  no  power  to 
mitigate  these  extremes  in  the  slightet  degree;  that  they  were  just  as  great 
before  the  forests  were  cut  off  as  they  are  to-day,  and  there  is  some  evidence 
that  they  were  greater. 

But  the  very  argument  itself  that  deforestation  has  made  moderate  floods 
more  frequent  than  they  used  to  be  stands  without  proof.  Mr.  Leighton's  re- 

72538— AGE— 09 8 


114        FOREST  LANDS  FOE  THE   PROTECTION   OF   WATERSHEDS. 

searches  have  been  cited.  I  have  examined  his  numerous  tables  and  I  can 
only  give  it  as  my  professional  opinion  that  his  argument  is  hopelessly  defective 
for  lack  of  sufficient  data.  On  the  Ohio  River,  for  instance,  he  takes  a  period 
of  twenty-four  years,  divides  it  into  two  twelve-year  periods,  and  shows  that  in 
the  second  of  these  periods  moderate  floods  were  more  frequent  than  they  were 
before.  This  period  runs  from  1876  to  1900,  beginning  long  after  the  bulk  of 
the  deforestation  of  the  Allegheny  and  Monongahela  watersheds  had  taken 
place. 

From  information  recently  collected  at  the  United  States  Engineer  office  at 
Pittsburg  it  appears  that  the  change  in  forest  areas  on  these  two  watersheds 
during  this  entire  period  amounted  to  barely  6  per  cent  of  the  area  of  the 
watersheds,  and  that  the  mean  change  from  the  middle  of  one  period  to  the 
middle  of  the  next  was  only  3  per  cent.  Manifestly  to  draw  any  conclusions 
as  to  the  effect  of  such  a  change  upon  the  flow  of  these  streams  is  absurd.  It  is 
not  at  all  unlikely  that  another  period  of  twelve  years  will  show  a  reversal  of 
the  above  conditions. 

The  same  is  also  true  of  the  Connecticut  River  watershed,  where  it  is  an 
admitted  fact  that  the  forest  area  is  now  even  more  extensive  than  it  was  forty 
or  fifty  years  ago.  I  have  not  the  data  on  hand  to  test  Mr.  Leighton's  findings 
in  regard  to  the  Tennessee  River  watershed,  but,  in  any  case,  there  is  one  hope- 
less lack  of  data,  and  that  is  the  relation  between  each  particular  flood  and  the 
rain  that  produces  it.  It  is  not  a  question  of  "  means ;  "  it  is  a  question  of  spe- 
cific cases.  It  often  happens  that  a  smaller  rain,  coming  upon  a  watershed 
already  soaked  with  previous  rains,  will  produce  a  greater  flood  than  a  much 
heavier  rain  upon  the  same  watershed  when  the  latter  is  dry,  and,  unless  these 
conditions  are  known  and  the  manifold  circumstances  attending  them,  any  such 
conclusions  as  Mr.  Leighton  has  drawn,  when  applied  to  particular  local  water- 
sheds, are  unwarranted.  In  my  paper  I  was  very  careful  not  to  run  into  this 
error.  I  took  only  the  broad,  general  results  as  summed  up  in  the  final  flow 
of  our  great  rivers,  and  from  them  it  was  conclusively  shown  that  deforestation 
has  not  diminished  the  extremes  of  flow  at  all. 

In  regard  to  the  question  of  erosion  I  give  the  result  of  my  own  observation, 
and  that  is  that  it  is  almost  universally  a  question  of  cultivation.  A  tree  has 
no  power  to  prevent  erosion,  except  that  portion  which  is  directly  on  the  ground, 
and  if  the  tree  is  cut  down  and  removed  the  condition  of  the  ground  remains 
as  it  was  before,  except  where  logging  roads  or  chutes  are  constructed  for  the 
removal  of  the  timber.  When  the  cutting  of  timber  is  immediately  followed 
by  undergrowth,  the  latter  is  in  every  sense  as  effective,  and  often  very  much 
more  effective,  in  preventing  erosion  than  the  timber  itself.  It  may  be  replied 
that  trees  are  cut  down  only  to  give  place  to  cultivation  and  that,  therefore,  de- 
forestation and  tree  cutting  mean  the  same  thing ;  but  they  do  not  by  any  means, 
and  there  are  vast  areas  all  over  our  country  to-day  that  are  deforested,  i.  e., 
the  virgin  timber  has  been  removed,  but  have  not  been  reduced  to  cultivation 
at  all.  In  the  matter  of  preventing  erosion  of  our  fields,  it  is  a  question  of 
what  kind  of  cover  will  best  serve  this  purpose  and  meet  the  other  uses  to 
which  the  soil  is  to  be  put  If  that  cover  is  a  forest,  let  it  be  adopted,  but  do 
not  attempt  to  establish  any  hard-and-fast  rule  of  general  application  that  the 
removal  of  our  forests  leads  to  the  erosion  and  ruin  of  our  fields.  It  does  so 
in  only  special  cases  where  the  soil  is  extremely  unstable  and  liable  to  wash 
away  upon  any  disturbance. 

Doctor  Swain  states,  on  page  6,  that  I  have  not  proven  that  forests  never 
diminish  great  floods,  or  that  they  probably  do  increase  them  somewhat,  and 
that  it  is  therefore  only  a  matter  of  my  personal  opinion.  In  reply  to  this  I 
invite  your  attention  to  the  tables  showing  the  great  floods  on  our  principal 
rivers,  as  far  back  as  records  have  been  kept,  and  you  will  there  find  that  both 
the  great  floods  and  the  extreme  low  waters  were  quite  as  great  and  quite  as 
frequent  in  the  earlier  periods  as  they  are  at  the  present  day. 

Doctor  Swain's  criticisms  of  my  reference  to  the  reservoir  scheme  projected 
for  the  river  Rhone  are  not  well  taken,  in  the  absence  of  information  on  his 
part.  If  he  will  read  the  remarks  of  the  French  engineers  upon  this  subject, 
he  will  see  that  they  found,  after  very  exhaustive  study,  that  the  system  of 
reservoirs  they  proposed — with  outlets  permanently  opened — would  have  aggra- 
vated the  flood  which  actually  occurred  in  the  lower  portions  of  that  valley  in 
1856. 

The  doctor's  criticism  of  my  reference  to  the  flood  of  1908  in  western  Mon- 
tana (p.  9)  is  also  not  well  taken.  It  was  not  a  matter  of  opinion  at  all,  but 
a  practical,  logical  proposition,  as  capable  of  demonstration  as  any  proposition 
in  mathematics. 


FOREST   LANDS  FOB   THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        115 

At  the  bottom  of  the  same  page  Doctor  Swain  touches  upon  the  real  crux 
of  this  whole  question,  and  that  is  climatic  or  atmospheric  conditions.  Every 
flood  is  produced  by  rain  or  snow.  No  flood  was  ever  produced  in  which  the 
rain  or  snow  did  not  descend  in  very  considerable  quantities.  It  is  perfectly 
demonstrable  that  the  proportion  of  any  precipitation  (which  is  capable  of 
producing  a  flood  in  our  large  rivers)  that  can  be  held  back  or  controlled  by  a 
forest  bed  is  relatively  an  insignificant  quantity.  It  is  this  fact — that  the 
heavy  rains  completely  drown  out  and  exhaust  the  storage  capacity  of  the 
forest  bed — that  renders  it  nugatory  in  diminishing  the  height  of  the  flood.  It 
no  doubt  has  some  influence  when  the  first  rains  come,  after  a  period  of  some- 
what dry  weather,  but  in  a  short  time  its  capacity  is  to  all  practical  purposes 
exhausted  and  it  cuts  no  figure  whatever  in  restraining  the  subsequent  run-off. 

The  question,  therefore,  comes  back  to  rainfall,  and  unless  the  forestry 
advocates  can  show  that  deforestation  has  a  direct  and  powerful  influence 
upon  rainfall  their  whole  position  would  seem  to  fall  to  the  ground.  I  believe 
that  it  is  now  well  recognized  the  world  over  that  climatic  changes  do  not 
result  from  the  clearing  of  the  land.  I  can  produce  pages  of  records  of  the 
rainfall  in  our  own  country  that  would  seem  to  prove  this  conclusively,  and 
I  quote  here  an  item  which  I  happened  to  have  at  hand  from  Professor  Abb§  of 
the  Weather  Bureau,  which  is  exactly  in  point. 

"  There  is  no  well-authenticated  case  of  an  appreciable  change  of  climate 
within  the  past  two  thousand  years.  The  researches  of  Eginitis  on  the  climate 
of  Greece  seem  to  establish  this  principle  beyond  doubt.  Neither  is  it  possible 
that  any  change  on  the  surface  of  the  earth  due  to  man — such  as  deforestation, 
reforestation,  agriculture,  canals,  railroads  or  telegraph  lines — can  have  had 
anything  more  than  the  slightest  local  effect  on  climatic  phenomena  that 
depend  upon  the  action  of  the  whole  atmosphere." 

The  examples  cited  by  Doctor  Swain  of  expenditures  by  foreign  governments 
for  reforestation  have  no  pertinence  to  the  point  here  in  consideration.  It  is 
perfectly  true  that  all  enlightened  countries  expend  money  for  this  purpose, 
as  they  should,  and  as  it  is  to  be  hoped  our  country  will  do;  but  it  is  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  forests  and  not  for  the  improvement  or  control  of  our  great 
rivers.  In  France  they  have  been  resorted  to  extensively  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  erosion  on  mountain  slopes,  where  extensive  deforestation  and  ill- 
advised  cultivation  were  undertaken  upward  of  a  century  ago. 

In  reference  to  my  argument  concerning  the  low-water  flow  of  rivers,  some 
misunderstanding  has  resulted,  due  to  a  failure  to  comprehend  what  I  actually 
said.  In  no  case  have  I  depreciated  the  value  of  springs  which  are,  of  course, 
of  the  very  highest  importance  at  such  times;  but  I  simply  said  that  the  dif- 
ference between  the  low-water  flow  of  a  spring  or  stream  when  forests  covered 
the  ground  and  what  it  is  now,  is  a  relatively  very  small  quantity,  compared 
with  the  flow  of  the  river  itself. 

The  real  springs  upon  which  our  streams  rely  in  time  of  low  water  remain 
nearly  permanent  and  respond  very  slowly  to  the  effects  of  rainfall.  They  are 
deep-seated  springs  that  flow  for  long  distances  through  the  earth,  and  often 
emerge  to  the  surface  far  from  their  source  of  supply.  Such  springs  are  found 
in  all  parts  of  this  country  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  many  towns  and 
cities  rely  upon  them  for  their  supply.  I  have  been  unable  to  find  any  evidence 
that  these  permanent  springs  have  suffered  materially  in  volume  from  defor- 
estation of  the  country.  The  shallower  springs,  those  which  come  from  near 
by  and  respond  quickly  to  rainfall  and  drought,  are  the  ones  that  dry  up  to 
such  an  extent  in  the  low  water  season.  They  used  to  dry  up  also  before  the 
forests  were  cut  away,  and  do  so  in  forests  to-day,  as  anyone  can  see  by  exam- 
ining springs  in  the  early  part  of  the  season  and  then  again  in  the  autumn. 
It  is  this  class  of  springs  which  has  suffered,  if  there  has  been  any  diminution 
by  the  clearing  of  the  country.  But  it  is  right  here  that  our  forestry  friends 
jump  at  the  conclusion,  which  is  by  no  means  warranted,  that  the  removal  of 
the  trees  is  the  cause  of  this  diminution  and  also  the  cause  of  the  diminishing 
supply  of  wells.  They  never  stop  to  consider  the  enormous  demand  upon  these 
waters,  which  has  accompanied  the  settlement  of  the  country  and  which  is 
increasing  all  the  time.  The  one  item  of  locomotives  in  the  United  States  takes 
up  170  cubic  feet  of  water  per  second  or  a  stream  twice  as  large  as  the  Mon- 
ongahela  River  in  extreme  low  water.  Towns  require  100  gallons  per  day  per 
individual;  every  farm  has  its  wells  and  the  drain  of  water  for  these  varied 
purposes  is  something  enormous.  It  has  been  conclusively  proven  that  wells, 
by  being  constantly  drawn  upon,  lower  the  water  where  no  change  whatever  has 
taken  place  upon  the  surface  of  the  ground.  In  fact,  it  seems  reasonably  cer- 


116        FOEEST  LANDS  FOE  THE   PEOTECTION   OF    WATEBSHEDS. 

tain  that,  if  all  these  demands  for  various  purposes  were  to  be  shut  off  com- 
pletely, if  such  a  thing  were  possible,  our  springs  and  wells  and  little  streams 
would  show  a  material  increase  in  flow.  These  losses  are,  of  course,  not  at 
all  due  to  the  presence  or  absence  of  forests  and  can  not  be  affected  by  anything 
which  may  be  done  in  the  planting  of  trees. 

In  like  manner,  the  assumption  that  the  little  mill  of  former  times  was 
abandoned  because  of  low  water  is  entirely  erroneous.  Take  any  one  of  these 
mills  and  trace  its  history,  and  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  business  and  not  physical 
conditions  will  be  found  to  be  the  explanation.  The  advent  of  steam  and 
cheaper  methods  of  manufacture  have  done  away  with  the  little  mill,  and  if 
steam  were  abolished  to-day  the  little  mill  would  most  assuredly  come  back 
again  without  delay.  So  in  all  these  cases,  whatever  the  diminution  of  the 
flow  of  small  streams  may  be,  it  can  not  be  chargeable  entirely  to  forests,  but 
has  other  good  and  more  important  explanations. 

There  is,  however,  one  thing  which  undoubtedly  increases  the  dry-season 
flow  in  the  open  country  somewhat  over  that  in  the  forest,  and  that  is  the 
summer  showers.  The  roads  and  ditches,  the  pavements,  and  roofs  of  houses 
do  shed  such  showers  more  effectually  than  the  forests  at  such  times,  and  un- 
doubtedly the  summer  run-off  in  the  streams  is  then  greater  in  the  open  country 
than  in  the  forests.  This  is  precisely  what  I  referred  to  when  I  said  that 
the  Increased  run-off  from  showers  very  likely  made  up  the  difference  in  the 
low-water  flow  of  springs.  In  proof  of  this  I  appeal  to  the  records  of  our 
large  rivers,  which  show  that  the  low-water  flow  under  present  conditions  is 
no  lower  than  it  used  to  be  when  forests  covered  the  country.  In  fact,  to  cite 
an  example  of  the  Monongahela  River,  if  all  the  demands  for  water  upon 
that  stream  which  have  grown  up  since  1856  (a  very  low-water  year)  were 
cut  off,  the  flow  of  that  stream  in  the  great  drought  of  last  fall  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  greater  than  it  was  in  the  year  above  mentioned. 

I  will  not  go  at  length  into  Doctor  Swain's  criticism  of  my  argument  in 
regard  to  the  influence  of  forests  on  snow  melting,  as  this  applies  mainly  to 
the  Rocky  Mountain  region  and  the  Pacific  coast  and  has  a  relatively  small 
bearing  upon  the  Appalachian  forests.  As  to  the  argument  itself,  I  believe  it 
will  come  out  of  this  discussion  as  permanently  established  as  any  fact  in 
science.  You  will  find,  when  you  come  to  read  some  of  the  papers  which  it  has 
called  forth,  that  the  state  engineer  of  Wyoming  confirms  it  in  its  entirety; 
certain  engineers  of  Los  Angeles  give  comparisons  of  four  rivers  in  the  Sierra 
Nevada  Mountains  and  show  that  the  deforested  watersheds  have  the  most 
regular  and  most  copious  supply,  and  you  will  also  see  another  paper  in  which 
the  same  results  are  set  forth  in  the  mountains  of  Nevada. 

The  annunciation  of  this  theory  has  caused  some  surprise  and  a  good  deal  of 
opposition,  but  it  has  not  been  shaken  by  anything  that  Doctor  Swain  has  said, 
and  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  rest  upon  the  simple  statement  of  facts  put  forth 
In  my  paper. 

The  same  is  also  true  as  to  the  forests  of  this  coast.  In  nothing  have  I  been 
so  much  surprised  as  in  becoming  acquainted  with  the  torrential  character  of 
these  streams.  If  there  is  a  place  on  the  face  of  the  earth  where  forests 
ought  to  regulate  stream  flow,  it  is  right  here.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  these 
streams  respond  to  storms  in  a  way  that  I  have  never  known  to  happen  in  any 
country  cleared  of  forests.  It  is  undoubtedly  due  to  the  effect  of  the  forests 
In  spreading  the  snow  out  in  such  vast  areas,  so  that  the  rain  and  warm 
weather  get  at  it  in  all  directions;  and  also  to  the  fact  that  through  long 
periods  of  time  the  water  has  created  little  channels  underneath  the  debris,  so 
that  it  finds  its  way  to  the  streams  much  more  readily  than  one  would  imagine. 
The  fact  stands  out  very  clear  and  undisputed  that,  in  this  region  of  pro- 
tected watersheds,  floods  and  low  waters  are  just  as  pronounced  as  in  our 
eastern  cultivated  country,  except  where  low  water  is  kept  up  by  the  supply 
from  the  glaciers. 

In  regard  to  the  caving  of  our  river  banks,  I  would  expressly  request  that 
my  statement  of  that  case  be  studied  carefully,  because  I  believe  it  to  be  sub- 
stantially correct.  Of  course,  the  great  moving  of  silt  in  our  rivers  is  from 
the  local  caving  of  banks,  but  it  is  always  in  the  nature  of  picking  up  here  and 
putting  down  there.  It  does  not  contribute  to  the  total  outflow  from  the 
mouths  of  the  rivers,  because  these  valleys,  from  year  to  year,  are  gathering 
sediment  all  the  time. 

As  to  the  statement  on  page  19,  second  paragraph,  which  is  criticised  by 
Doctor  Swain,  I  will  simply  say  that  if  any  one  will  take  a  board  and  put 
sand,  soil,  or  any  other  absorptive  material  on  it,  and  saturate  it  with  water, 


FOEEST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PBOTECTION    OF   WATEBSHEDS.        117 

weight  the  water,  and  find  out  bow  much  of  it  runs  off  when  inclined  at  an 
angle  of  5  degrees  and  also  how  much  when  it  is  inclined  at  an  angle  of  46 
degrees,  he  will  at  once  agree  entirely  with  the  author's  statement. 

Referring  once  more  to  the  question  of  filling  up  our  streams  through  erosion, 
of  which  so  much  is  made  in  recent  articles  on  forestry,  I  have  to  say  that  In 
my  paper  I  ch.-illeiige  directly  the  statement  so  frequently  made  that  our  own 
navigable  rivers  are  silting  np  as  a  result  of  deforestation.  That  challenge 
has  remained  unreplied  to,  because  the  facts  prove  the  statement  untrue.  Very 
interesting  in  this  connection  is  a  recent  investigation  by  the  Geological  Survey  ° 
in  connection  with  Air.  Leighton's  proposed  reservoir  system,  in  which  it  was 
shown  that  under  present  conditions,  after  deforestation  has  progressed  to  a 
very  great  degree,  there  is  absolutely  no  danger  that  these  reservoirs  would 
become  inoperative  for  many  hundreds  and  even  thousands  of  years  from 
filling  up  with  sediment.  When  this  fact  is  considered,  it  is  easily  seen  how 
slight  an  influence  such  sediment  can  make  upon  a  great  river  like  the  Ohio, 
which  can  easily  wash  it  all  out  and  a  thousand  times  as  much,  and  still  not 
tax  its  energy  to  the  limit.  If  the  erosion  from  these  watersheds  is  now  so 
small,  after  deforestation  has  taken  place  on  perhaps  50  or  60  per  cent  of 
the  watersheds,  why  should  we  assume  that  it  will  become  dangerous  with  the 
removal  of  15  or  20  per  cent  more  of  the  forests. 

To  sum  up  this  somewhat  rambling  letter,  I  wish  to  say  that  my  point  in 
the  whole  discussion  is  simply  this,  that  it  is  to-day  an  unproveu  fact — and  I 
thoroughly  believe  incapable  of  being  proven — that  anything  which  it  is  possible 
to  do  in  the  line  of  reforestation  will  simplify  our  river  problems  in  the  least 
degree.  It  was.  in  fact,  the  real  purpose  of  my  paper  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  country  to  this  matter  in  connection  with  its  future  policy  in  the  creation 
of  our  forests.  The  proposed  Appalachian  Forest  Ileserve  will  cost  many  mil- 
lions of  dollars.  If  it  is  being  undertaken  in  the  interests  of  river  improve- 
ment, the  people  should  be  thoroughly  informed  as  to  whether  the  promised 
improvement  will  result.  If  it  is  found,  upon  investigation,  that  the  creation  or 
preservation  of  these  forests  will  not  simplify  these  problems  or  reduce  the  cost 
of  navigation  works  and  flood  protection  in  any  degree,  then,  manifestly,  it  is 
not  a  proper  expenditure  for  this  purpose.  I  thoroughly  believe  in  the  neces- 
sity of  inaugurating  a  comprehensive  policy  of  creating  and  extending  our 
pieseut  forests  as  far  as  it  is  practicable,  but  it  seems  to  me  th.it  it  ought  to 
be  done  for  the  m«c  purpose  which  these  forests  are  to  serve 

In  my  paper  I  pointed  out  another  argument,  which  has  so  far  not  been  re- 
plied to  by  anyone,  and  that  is  that,  with  any  practical  extension  of  our  present 
forests  it  would  not  be  possible  to  produce  a  sufficient  result  to  make  any 
appreciable  effect  upon  our  streams,  even  granting  the  full  force  of  the  forestry 
argument.  We  can  not,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  have  a  greater  area  of 
woodland  than  we  now  have,  namely,  about  one-third  of  our  total  area  east 
of  the  Mississippi  River,  The  necessities  of  settlement  and  cultivation  will 
rather  require  it  to  be  reduced. 

If  I  may  make  a  suggestion  in  this  connection  it  would  be  this-:  This  im- 
portant subject  has  never  really  been  brought  up  for  general  discussion;  until 
within  the  last  few  months  it  has  always  been  advocated  from  the  pro-forestry 
side  alone.  AVithin  the  next  few  mouths  there  will  be  printed  the  entire  dis- 
cussion of  my  paper,  including  arguments  by  Messrs.  Pinchot,  Leightou,  and 
Swain,  and  Professors  Smith  and  Willis  of  the  Geological  Survey,  besides 
several  prominent  engineers.  It  will  include  also  my  closing  argument  on  the 
subject. 

It  would  seem  very  desirable  that  this  information  should  be  gotten  before 
your  committee  before  it  takes  final  action  in  this  matter,  and  it  would  seem, 
further,  to  be  very  desirable  that  instead  of  immediate  action  the  whole  matter 
should  be  referred  to  a  commission  in  which  the  engineering  profession  shall 
have  at  least  an  equal  representation.  The  trouble  with  the  forestry  advo- 
cates is  that  they  have  a  "  cause  "  to  promote,  and  the  promotion  of  this  cause 
does  not  leave  them  in  that  free  and  unbiased  state  of  mind  which  is  required 
for  an  impartial  investigation  of  a  subject  like  this. 

The  future  development  of  our  forests  is  going  to  cost  many  millions  ot 
dollars,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  a  wise  step  to  pursue  the  same  course  in  this 
as  in  any  other  great  undertaking,  like  the  Panama  Canal,  for  instance,  by 
subjecting  it  first  to  a  full  and  impartial  investigation  in  order  that  its  varied 


a  See  Engineering  News.  Dec.  10,  1908,  p.  649. 


118         FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

bearings  may  be  fully  disclosed.  There  is  manifestly  no  necessity  for  precipi- 
tate action.  In  spite  of  all  that  the  pessimist  may  say,  our  country  is  not 
going  to  ruin  if  the  Appalachian  bill  is  not  passed  at  this  session  of  Congress, 
and  it  is  important,  in  the  interest  of  intelligent  legislation,  that  a  very  thor- 
ough investigation  of  the  whole  subject  be  made  before  any  definite  policy  is 
adopted. 

I  have  been  greatly  impressed  with  the  immense  drawback  to  the  country, 
due  to  the  situation  of  some  of  our  forests,  which  are  so  remote  and  inaccessi- 
ble as  to  be  almost  valueless,  and  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  any  intelligent 
policy  must  include  the  restoration  of  our  forests  where  they  used  to  be  and 
in  these  situations  that  are  most  accessible  and  most  convenient  to  the  homes 
of  the  people. 

I  am  in  no  sense  opposed  to  the  Appalachian  forest  reserve,  so  far  as  such  a 
reserve  satisfies  the  requirements  of  a  source  of  timber  supply,  but  when  it 
comes  to  creating  such  a  reserve  on  the  ground  that  it  will  simplify  or  cheapen 
the  problem  of  flood  protection  and  navigation  in  our  navigable  rivers,  the 
matter  requires  further  investigation. 

Very  respectfully,  H.  M.  CHITTENDEN, 

Lieutenant-Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

I  forgot  to  refer  to  the  effect  of  snow  upon  the  forest  bed  in  our  eastern  de- 
ciduous forests.  The  fallen  leaves  of  the  previous  year  are  pressed  down  per- 
fectly flat  and  form  a  partially  water-tight  lining  between  the  snow  and  the 
ground,  which  not  only  interferes  with  absorption  of  such  melting  as  may  take 
place  from  underneath,  but  materially  accelerates  surface  run-off  into  the 


HOUSE  EEPORT  NO.  2027,  60TH  CONGEESS,  SECOND  SESSION. 


ACQUIRING  LAND  FOR  THE  PROTECTION  OF   WATERSHEDS  FOR  THE 
CONSERVATION  OF  NAVIGABLE  STREAMS. 


FEBRUARY  3,  1909.—  Committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state 
of  the  Union  and  ordered  to  be  printed. 


Messrs.   WEEKS  and  LEVER,  from  the  Committee  on    Agriculture, 
submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  S.  4825.] 

The  Committee  on  Agriculture,  to  which  was  referred  various  bills 
for  the  protection  of  the  watersheds  of  navigable  streams,  submits  the 
following  report,  to  accompany  Senate  bill  4825. 

After  a  thorough  discussion  of  the  purposes  to  be  accomplished  it 
was  deemed  advisable  to  report  the  accompanying  bill,  as  meeting 
more  fully  than  any  other  the  needs  of  the  situation. 

Section  I  proposes  to  give  the  consent  of  Congress  to  each  of  the 
several  States  of  the  Union  to  enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact 
not  in  conflict  with  any  law  of  the  United  States,  with  any  State  or 
States  for  the  purpose  "of  conserving  the  forests  and  water  supply  of 
the  States  entering  into  such  agreement  or  compact. 

Section  2  appropriates  the  sum  of  $100,000  to  enable  the  Secretary 
of  Agriculture  to  cooperate  with  any  State  or  group  of  States,  when 
requested  to  do  so.  in  the  protection  from  fire  of  the  forested  water- 
sheds of  navigable  streams,  and  the  Secretary  is  authorized  to  stipu- 
late and  agree  with  any  State  or  group  of  States  to  cooperate  in  the 
organization  and  maintenance  of  a  system  of  fire  protection  on  any 
private  or  state  lands  within  such  State  or  States  and  situated  upon 
the  watershed  of  a  navigable  river. 

The  section  further  provides  that  no  such  stipulation  or  agreement 
shall  be  made  with  any  State  which  has  not  provided  by  law  for  a  sys- 
tem of  fire  protection,  and  that  in  no  case  is  the  amount  contributed  to 
any  State  to  exceed  the  amount  appropriated  by  that  State  for  the 
same  purpose. 

Section  3  provides  that  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may,  for  the 
protection  of  the  watersheds  of  navigable  streams,  on  such  conditions 
as  he  deems  wise,  agree  to  administer  and  protect  for  a  definite  term 
of  years  any  private  forest  lands  situated  upon  any  watershed  whereon 

119 


120        FOEEST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

lands  ma}7  be  permanent  y  reserved,  held,  and  administered  as  national 
forest  lands,  and  that  in  such  case  the  owner  shall  cut  and  remove  the 
timber  thereon  only  under  such  rules  and  regulations  as  will  provide 
for  the  protection  of  the  forest  in  the  aid  of  navigation.  The  section 
provides  that  in  no  case  is  the  United  States  to  be  liable  for  any  dam- 
age resulting  from  fire  or  any  other  cause  on  such  lands. 

Section  4  provides  that  from  receipts  from  the  sale  or  disposal  of 
any  products  or  the  use  of  lands  or  resources  from  the  public  lands 
now  or  hereafter  to  be  set  aside  as  national  forests  which  may  here- 
after be  turned  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  and  which  are 
not  otherwise  appropriated,  there  shall  be  available  $1,000,000  for  the 
fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1909,  and  not  to  exceed  $2,000,000  for  each 
fiscal  year  thereafter,  to  be  used  in  the  examination,  survey,  and  ac- 
quirement of  lands  located  on  the  headwaters  of  navigable  streams,  or 
those  which  are  being  or  which  ma}T  be  developed  for  navigable  pur- 
poses, and  further  provides  that  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall 
expire  by  limitation  on  June  30,  1919. 

This  section  has  two  features  not  included  in  any  of  the  other  bills 
referred  to  the  committee.  The  first  is,  that  the  proceeds  from  the 
present  national  forests.,  so  far  as  they  are  at  present  unappropriated, 
are  to  be  turned  to  the  purchase  of  forest  lands  to  the  amounts  above 
mentioned.  The  second  feature  is,  that  instead  of  limiting  the  acquisi- 
tions by  purchase  or  otherwise  for  this  purpose  to  any  particular 
region  or  regions,  such  as  the  Southern  Appalachian  or  White  Moun- 
tain region,  lands'  may  be  acquired  on  any  watershed,  so  far  as  they 
fall  within  the  purposes  of  the  bill. 

Section  5  provides  for  the  establishment  of  a  National  Forest  Res- 
ervation Commission,  to  be  composed  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  one  member 
of  the  Senate,  and  one  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  the 
object  of  the  commission  being  to  consider  and  pass  upon  such  lands 
as  may  be  recommended  for  purchase  and  to  fix  the  price  or  prices 
to  be  paid  for  such  lands.  It  further  provides  for  limiting  incum- 
bency and  for  filling  vacancies  in  the  commission. 

Section  <3  provides  for  an  annual  report  to  Congress  of  the  operation* 
and  expenditures  of  the  commission. 

Section  7  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to  examine  and 
locate  lands  to  be  recommended  to  the  National  Forest  Reservation- 
Commission  for  purchase.  The  section  also  provides  that  a  report 
shall  be  made  to  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  by  the  Geological  Survey 
showing  in  what  way  the  control  of  such  lands  will  promote  or  protect 
the  navigation  of  streams  on  whose  watersheds  they  lie. 

Sections  8  and  9  provide  the  method  by  which  lands  may  be  acquired 
by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  after  they  have  been  approved  by  the 
National  Forest  Reservation  Commission. 

Section  10  provides  that  the  owner  of  the  land  from  whom  title 
passes  to  the  United  States  may,  under  certain  conditions,  reserve  the 
minerals  and  merchantable  timber  within  or  upon  such  lands  at  the 
date  of  conveyance,  and  provides  the  method  by  which  the  removal  of 
such  minerals  or  timber  may  thereafter  be  accomplished. 

Section  11  provides  for  the  sale  of  small  areas  of  agricultural  land* 
which  may  of  necessity  or  by  inadvertence  be  included  in  tracts  acquired 
under  this  act. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        121 

Sections  12  and  13  provide  for  the  management  as  national  forests 
of  the  lands  so  acquired  and  describe  the  limits  of  civil  and  criminal 
jurisdiction  over  them. 

Section  14  provides  that  25  per  cent  of  all  moneys  received  from  any 
national  forest  acquired  under  this  act  shall  be  paid  at  the  end  of  each 
year  to  the  State  in  which  such  national  forest  is  situated  for  the 
benefit  of  public  schools  and  public  roads. 

Section  15  provides  for  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  commission 
and  prescribes  the  manner  of  auditing  and  paying  of  the  same. 

SCOPE   OF   THE   BILL. 

This  bill  is  general  in  its  scope,  and  permits  the  acquirement  of 
lands  in  any  part  of  the  United  States  wnere  such  acquisition  can  be 
shown  to  be  advisable  to  the  National  Forest  Reservation  Commission, 
after  the  Geological  Survey  has  determined  that  such  acquisition  will 
promote  or  protect  the  navigability  of  streams  on  whose  watersheds 
the  lands  lie. 

INCOME    FROM   THE    NATIONAL    FORESTS   TO    BE    USED. 

The  funds  to  be  used  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill  are  a  pre- 
scribed amount  of  those  which  come  into  the  Treasury  from  the  sale 
of  the  products  or  the  use  of  the  resources  of  the  national  forests  so 
far  as  they  are  not  now  appropriated.  The  law  at  present  provides 
that  25  per  cent  of  the  money  so  received  shall  be  paid  to  the  States 
or  Territories  in  which  such  forests  are  located,  for  school  and  road 
purposes.  It  is  to  be  particularly  noted  that  this  bill  does  not  change 
that  plan,  but  rather  extends  it  to  the  States  or  Territories  in  which 
national  forests  may  be  acquired.  The  net  amount  received  from  the 
uses  of  the  national  forests  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1908, 
was  $1,341,691.30,  and  for  the  present  fiscal  }7ear  is  estimated  to  be 
$1,500,000. 

RELATION   OF    FORESTS   TO   THE    USE   OF   INLAND    WATERWAYS. 

The  relation  of  forests  to  the  use  of  the  inland  waterways  is  shown 
by  the  following  quotations: 

Our  river  systems  are  better  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  people  than  those  of  any 
other  country.  In  extent,  distribution,  navigability,  and  ease  of  use  they  stand 
first.  Yet  the  rivers  of  no  other  civilized  country  are  so  poorly  developed,  s-o  little 
used,  or  play  so  small  a  part  in  the  industrial  life  of  the  nation." 

The  first  requisite  for  waterway  improvement  is  the  control  of  the  waters  in  such 
manner  as  to  reduce  floods  and  regulate  the  regimen  of  the  navigable  streams.  & 

Every  stream  should  be  used  to  the  utmost;  every  river  system,  from  ity  head- 
waters in  the  forest  to  its  mouth  on  the  coast,  is  a  single  unit  and  should  be  treated 
as  such,  c 

A  mountain  watershed  denuded  of  its  forest,  with  its  surface  hardened  and  baked 
by  exposure,  will  discharge  its  fallen  rain  into  the  streams  so  quickly  that  over- 
whelming floods  will  descend  in  wet  seasons.  In  discharging  in  this  torrential  way 
the  water  carries  along  great  portions  of  the  land  itself.  Deep  gullies  are  washed  in 

a  Preliminary  Report  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Commission.  Senate  Document 
325,  Sixtieth  Congress,  first  session. 

&  Report  of  ttfe  National  Conservation  Commission.  Senate  Document  676,  Sixtieth 
Congress,  second  session. 

c  Preliminary  Report  of  the  Inland  Waterways  Commission.  Senate  Document  325, 
Sixtieth  Congress,  first  session,  page  2. 


122        FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

the  fields,  and  the  soil,  sand,  gravel,  and  stone  are  carried  down  the  streams  to  points 
where  the  current  slackens.  Since  the  extensive  removal  of  the  forest  on  the  upper 
watersheds  there  has  been  avast  accumulation  of  silt,  sand,  and  gravel  in  the  upper- 
stream  courses.  Examples  of  reservoirs  completely  filled  are  already  to  be  seen  on 
almost  every  stream.  In  the  degree  that  the  forests  are  damaged  on  the  high  water- 
sheds, then  inevitable  damage  results  to  water  power  and  navigation  through  increased 
extremes  of  high  and  low  water  and  through  vast  deposits  of  grave),  sand,  and  silt 
in  the  stream  channels  and  in  any  reservoir  which  may  have  been  constructed,  o 

The  chief  obstacles  to  navigation,  then,  are  lack  of  water  during  portions  of  the 
year,  and  detritus  which  is  washed  into  the  streams  and  gradually  fills  the  channels 
or  forms  obstructions  at  the  mouth.  Were  the  flow  uniform,  the  amount  of  water 
carried  by  a  river  during  the  year  would  be  sufficient  to  provide  a  good  depth  at  all 
times.  But  the  flow  is  uneven;  there  is  too  much  water  at  one  time  and  not  enough 
at  another.  The  floods  of  the  spring  waste  the  water  which  should  be  available  to 
maintain  a  navigable  depth  during  the  summer  and  fall.  To  lessen  this  inequality 
of  flow  should  therefore  be  the  aim  of  all  measures  for  the  development  of  our  water- 
ways. If  the  rivers  could  be  kept  always  in  gentle  flood,  a  relatively  small  expendi- 
ture for  reservoirs,  locks,  and  dams  would  be  required.  In  the  same  way,  if  means 
could  be  found  to  prevent  silt  and  sand  from  being  washed  into  the  streams  the 
enormous  cost  of  dredging  would  be  largely  done  away  with.  The  function  of  the 
forest  and  of  the  humus  beneath  as  a  storage  reservoir 'is  of  high  importance,  yet  in 
relation  to  navigation  and  the  storage  of  storm  waters  the  influence  which  the  forest 
has  in  checking  erosion  is  of  equal,  if  not  greater  value.  & 

In  the  Southern  Appalachians  the  fullest  use  of  water  resources  can  be  secured  only 
by  carefully  guarding  the  natural  conditions  which  control  them.  The  valuable 
water  resources  of  this  region  depend  absolutely  upon  the  maintenance  of  a  protect- 
ive forest  cover.  Without  this  forest  cover  the  water  power  of  the  region  can  never 
be  developed  to  the  full,  and  in  the  same  way  the  navigable  streams  can  not  be  kept 
from  silting  up  if  the  forest  cover  about  their  headwaters  is  removed.  The  protec- 
tion of  these  areas  is  a  large  undertaking,  but  it  is  necessarily  the  first  undertaking, 
since  it  is  fundamental  to  the  development  and  utilization  of  the  water  resources.  If 
the  forest  is  not  first  protected,  damage  to  water  resources  will  be  far-reaching.  If 
the  forest  is  preserved,  the  benefits  from  the  standpoint  of  water  utilization  will  be 
widely  diffused,  even  far  beyond  the  borders  of  the  Appalachain  region,  c 

The  opinions  here  quoted  represent  the  almost  unanimous  view  of 
all  who  have  investigated  the  relation  between  mountain  forests  and 
navigable  rivers.  The  bill  which  the  committee  has  reported  is  in  line 
with  the  policy  of  conservation  as  recommended  by  the  President  and 
the  National  Conservation  Commission.  It  provides  for  establishing 
an  adequate  programme  of  protection  to  the  mountain  forests  by  giv- 
ing the  Federal  Government  the  right  to  cooperate  with  the  States  or 
with  private  individuals,  and  by  the  acquisition  of  lands  where  such  is 
necessary.  Further,  it  provides  the  most  natural  arrangement  for 
defraying  the  cost  of  such  acquisition— that  of  using  the  funds  which 
come  to  the  Treasury  from  the  national  forests  already  established, 
and  the  bill  necessitates  the  appropriation  of  no  additional  sums  of 
money  in  the  carrying  out  of  this  project. 

It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  Government  to  improve  its  navigable 
streams  by  the  expenditure  of  large  sums  of  money,  in  some  cases  at 
their  headwaters.  For  example,  a  series  of  reservoirs  has  been  con- 
structed at  the  headwaters  of  the  Mississippi  at  a  cost  of  approxi- 
mately $2,000,000.  Locks  and  dams  have  been  constructed  on  the 
Monongahela  River  at  a  cost  of  $2,479,818.48:  on  the  Allegheny  Kiver, 
$1,658,423.18;  and  on  the  Ohio  River  in  Pennsylvania,  $5,385,060.78. 
Expenditures  have  been  made  on  the  headwaters  of  the  Sacramento 

° Report  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  on  the  Southern  Appalachian  Watersheds. 
Senate  Document  91,  Sixtieth  Congress,  first  session. 

6  Report  of  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  to  the  Department  of  Agriculture.  Forest 
Service  Circular  No.  143. 

c  Report  of  the  U.  S.  Geological  Survey  to  the  Department  of  Agriculture.  Forest 
:•  -  vice  Circular  No.  144. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        123 

River  amounting  to  $400,000  for  the  construction  of  dams  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  the  silting  up  of  the  lower  channel  of  the  river 
as  a  result  of  hydraulic  mining  in  the  mountains. 

In  France,  the  first  efforts  to  repair  the  disastrous  torrents  were 
made  by  engineers  along  the  lower  water  courses.  Dredging  and 
dams,  however,  proved  at  best  but  temporarily  effective.  Only  when 
they  began  to  push  this  work  up  to  the  headwaters  of  the  streams  did 
they  find  themselves  on  the  right  road. 

RELATION   OF   THE    FORESTS  TO   FLOODS. 

Flood  damage  in  the  United  States  has  increased  from  $45,000,000 
in  1900  to  1118,000,000  in  1907.  All  rivers  on  whose  watersheds  the 
forests  have  been  heavily  cut  show  flood  increases.  They  are  greatest 
in  such  streams  as  the  Ohio,  Cumberland,  Wateree,  and  Santee,  where 
the  most  timber  has  been  removed,  and  least  in  those  streams  on  whose 
watersheds  forest  conditions  have  been  least  changed.  Except  in  the 
change  of  forest  conditions  there  have  been  no  factors  that  could  have 
intensified  flood  conditions.  In  the  Ohio  River  in  seventy  years  the 
number  of  floods  at  Wheeling  has  increased  62  per  cent  and  their 
aggregate  duration  116  per  cent. 

In  the  Cumberland  River  at  Burnside,  Ky.,  the  number  of  floods 
increased  330  per  cent  in  the  fifteen  years  between  1891  and  1905  and 
the  duration  in  the  same  proportion.  During  the  same  period  in  the 
Wateree  River  at  Camden,  S.  C.,  the  number  of  floods  increased  65 
per  cent  and  the  duration  82  per  cent.  In  the  Congaree  River  the  in- 
crease during  the  same  time  has  been  94  per  cent  in  number  and  113 
per  cent  in  duration.  In  the  Savannah  River  at  Augusta,  Ga.,  be- 
tween the  years  1876  and  1905  the  increase  in  the  number  of  floods 
has  been  94  per  cent  and  in  duration  '266  per  cent.  Between  1891  and 
1905  the  Alabama  River  at  Salem,  Ala.,  had  an  increase  in  number  of 
floods  of  83  per  cent  and  in  duration  of  31  per  cent. 

The  Geological  Survey  has  made  a  careful  study  of  floods  in  the 
Tennessee  River  during  the  past  thirty-four  years,  and  has  found  that 
on  the  basis  of  equal  rainfall  floods  in  the  last  half  of  the  period  have 
increased  18f  per  cent. 

At  the  Tenth  International  Congress  on  Navigation,  held  in  Milan  in 
1905,  engineers  from  the  various  countries  of  Europe  were  unanimously 
of  the  opinion  that  mountain  forests  were  beneficial  in  .preventing 
floods,  in  regulating  the  low  water  in  streams,  and  in  retaining  the 
soil  upon  the  mountains. 

RELATION   OF    FORESTS   TO    SOIL   WASH. 

The  annual  soil  wash  in  the  United  States  is  estimated  by  the  Inland 
Waterways  Commission  atabout  1,000,000,000  tons,  of  which  the  greater 
part  is  the  most  valuable  portion  of  the  soil.  It  is  carried  into  the 
rivers,  where  it  pollutes  the  waters,  necessitates  frequent  and  costly 
dredging,  and  reduces  the  efficiency  of  work  designed  to  facilitate 
navigation  and  prevent  floods.  Soil  when  once  lost  is  replaced  with 
great  difficulty,  if  at  all.  Consequently  the  protection  of  the  forests 
on  the  slopes  which  are  too  steep  otherwise  to  be  utilized  means 
actually  immense  gain  in  soil  conservation. 


124        FOREST   LANDS   FOR   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

Not  only  is  soil  removed  in  great  quantities  from  mountain  surfaces, 
but  the  floods  which  gather  on  denuded  mountain  slopes  inevitably 
result  in  the  destruction  of  the  alluvial  soils  along  the  river  courses. 

OTHER   BENEFITS   FROM    FOREST   PRESERVATION. 

The  protection  to  navigable  streams  is  the  chief  purpose  of  the  pro- 
posed legislation.  Incidentally,  there  will  be  great  benefits  to  the 
whole  country  in  other  directions.  Water  power,  Like  navigation, 
depends  on  the  regular  flow  of  the  streams.  The  amount  of  water 
power  capable  of  development  in  the  United  States  is  sufficient  to 
operate  every  mill,  drive  every  spindle,  propel  every  train  and  boat, 
and  light  every  city,  town,  and  village  in  the  country.  The  continued 
successful  development  of  many  of  our  industries  in  the  future 
depends  in  large  part  upon  the  present  protection  of  our  inland  water- 
ways. We  are  using  three  times  as  much  timber  every  year  as  the 
forest  produces,  not  because  we  have  an  insufficient  area  of  forest 
land,  but  because  our  forests  are  not  protected  from  fire  nor  properly 
used.  The  eastern  forests  are  notable  for  their  hard- wood  production, 
half  of  the  country's  supply  being  obtained  from  this  source.  The 
proposed  bill  w'ill  give  protection  to  the  chief  hard-wood  forests  of  the 
country. 

EXPERIENCE  OF  OTHER  COUNTRIES  PROVES  THAT  THE  PROTECTION 
OF  THE  FORESTS  AT  THE  HEADWATERS  OF  IMPORTANT  STREAMS  IS 
IMPERATIVE. 

The  relation  of  the  mountain  forests  to  the  navigability  of  inland 
water  is  the  same  the  world  over.  Every  country  that  has  maintained 
an  even  and  sufficient  now  of  streams  for  the  purposes  of  commerce 
has  had  to  maintain  and  in  some  cases  establish  upon  the  headwaters 
of  the  streams  forests  to  hold  the  soil  in  place  and  to  prevent  over- 
whelming floods. 

Germany  stands  in  the  forefront  of  nations  in  inland  waterway 
development,  and  she  has  all  of  her  high  mountains  protected  by 
forests.  These  forests  have  been  under  government  management  for 
a  hundred  years  and  they  are  the  most  productive  and  profitable 
in  the  world,  yielding  an  average  net  return  of  $2.40  per  acre. 

The  stripping  of  the  forests  from  the  mountains  of  France  was 
unchecked  until  1860,  by  which  time  800,000  acres  of  farm  land  had 
been  ruined  or  seriously  damaged  and  the  waterways  practically 
destroyed.  The  population  of  18  departments  had  been  reduced  to 
poverty  and  forced  to  emigrate.  A  futile  attempt  was  then  made  to 
check  the  torrents  by  sodding.  It  was  only  by  the  acquisition  by  the 
Government  of  the*  bare  lands,  the  building  of  stone  walls  for  the 
gathering  of  silt  and  the  planting  of  trees  on  the  soil  held  in  check  by 
those  walls  that  satisfactory  results  were  accomplished.  The  cost 
of  this  method  has  often  been  as  much  as  $50  per  acre.  By  1900 
$15,000,000  had  been  spent  and  the  French  Government  has  continued 
the  work  by  acquiring  each  year  25,000  to  30,000  acres  of  land.  The 
present  programme  calls  for  the  expenditure  of  $50,000,000  on  this 
work.  About  one-fourth  of  the  mountain  streams  have  been  brought 
under  control  and  the  balance  are  beginning  to  shotv  indications  of 
improvement. 


FOREST  LANDS  FOB  THE   PEOTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        125 

Italy  has  suffered  extremely  from  the  ruin  which  follows  the  re- 
moval of  protective  forests.  One-third  of  all  the  land  is  unproductive, 
and  though  some  of  this  area  may  be  made  to  support  forest  growth, 
one-fourth  of  it  is  beyond  reclamation,  mainly  as  the  result  of  cleared 
hillsides  and  the  pasturing  of  goats.  The  rivers  are  dry  in  summer; 
in  spring  they  are  wild  torrents,  and  the  floods,  brown  with  the  soil 
of  the  hillsides,  bury  the  fertile  lowland  fields.  The  hills  are  scored 
where  the  rains  have  loosened  the  soil,  and  landslides  have  left  exposed 
the  sterile  rocks,  on  which  no  vegetation  finds  a  foothold.  Such  floods 
as  that  of  1897,  near  Bologna,  which  did  over  $1,000,000  damage, 
destroy  property  and  life. 

The  dearth  of  wood  and  especially  the  great  need  of  protecting  forests 
to  control  stream  flow  have  brought  some  excellent  forest  laws.  In 
spite  of  the  first  general  forest  law  (1877),  which  regulated  cutting  and 
forbade  clearing  on  mountain  slopes,  large  areas  have  persistently  been 
cleared,  and  though  provision  has  been  made  for  thorough  reforesting 
work,  very  little  of  the  needed  planting  has  been  done.  The  classifi- 
cation of  the  lands  to  which  restriction  shall  and  shall  not  apply  is  a 
constant  matter  of  dispute.  An  effort  has  been  made  to  show  that  the 
forest  planting  contemplated  by  law  is  largely  unnecessary.  The  last 
point,  however,  has  been  .safely  settled  by  recommendations  of  a  recent 
commission,  which  declare  that  at  least  500,000  acres  will  have  to  be 
planted,  at  a  cost  of  not  less  than  $12,000,000,  before  the  destructive 
torrents,  brought  on  by  stripping  and  overgrazing  the  hillsides,  can 
be  controlled. 

Spain  has  suffered  greatly  from  destructive  floods  caused  by  insuffi- 
cient forests  on  the  mountains.  She  has  enacted  an  elaborate  system 
of  laws  to  prevent  overcutting,  but  the  indebtedness  of  the  country 
has  prevented  the  efficient  carrying  out  of  these  laws. 

Other  countries  which  are  working  out  comprehensive  schemes  of 
protecting  forests  at  the  headwaters  of  mountain  streams  are  England 
in  India,  Switzerland,  Austria-Hungary,  Norway,  Sweden,  Denmark, 
Russia,  Roumania,  and  Japan. 

China  holds  a  unique  position  as  the  only  great  country  which  has 
persistently  destroyed  its  forests.  What  has  been  done  in  other  coun- 
tries stands  out  in  bold  relief  against  the  background  of  China,  whose 
mountains  and  hills  have  been  stripped  nearty  clean  of  trees,  and  whose 
soil  is  in  many  districts  completely  at  the  mercy  of  floods.  Trees  have 
been  left  only  where  they  could  not  be  reached.  Streams  which  for- 
merly were  narrow  and  'deep,  with  an  even  flow  of  water  throughout 
the  .year,  are  now  broad,  shallow  beds  choked  with  gravel,  sand,  and 
rocks  from  the  mountains.  During  most  of  the  year  many  of  them 
are  entirely  dry,  but  when  it  rains  the  muddy  torrents  come  pouring 
down,  bringing  destruction  to  life  and  all  forms  of  property.  .  In  a 
word,  the  Chinese,  by  forest  waste,  have  brought  upon  themselves  two 
costly  calamities — floods  and  water  famine.  The  forest  school  just 
opened  at  Mukden  is  the  first  step  in  the  direction  of  repairing  this 
waste  so  far  as  it  now  may  be  repaired. 

The  results  of  deforestation  in  China  are  particularly  discussed  and 
graphically  illustrated  in  the  President's  annual  message  to  the  second 
session  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress. 


126        FOBEST  LANDS  FOB  THE   PBOTECTION    OF   WATEBSHEDS. 
CONCLUSIONS. 

The  great  increase  in  floods  in  our  rivers,  together  with  the  increas- 
ing property  loss  and  annual  loss  of  soils,  shows  that  in  some  sections 
of  the  country  we  are  rapidly  approaching  the  situation  in  which 
China  now  finds  herself.  It  is  not  now  too  late  for  nature  to  restore 
the  forests  on  the  mountains,  but  the  time  is  rapidly  coming  when  it 
will  be.  The  question  of  protecting  the  forests  at  the  headwaters  of 
the  streams  is  a  national  as  well  as  a  state  problem.  It  is  not  right  to 
expect  the  State  to  deal  entirely  with  areas  requiring  protection  when 
those  areas  affect  chiefly  other  States.  It  is  impossible  for  States 
which  suffer  from  conditions  outside  their  own  territory  to  remedy 
them  by  their  own  action.  The  mountains  of  the  West  are  already 
largely  under  government  protection.  So  far  as  they  are  not  pro- 
tected this  bill  is  applicable  to  them.  It  is  applicable  to  all  other  sec- 
tions of  the  United  States  in  which  the  source  streams  of  the  navigable 
rivers  lie  in  nonagricultural,  mountainous  regions,  and  it  is  believed 
that  it  will  accomplish  the  necessary  protection  to  the  Southern 
Appalachians  and  White  Mountains. 

If  the  action  which  this  bill  proposes  is  taken  by  Congress,  it  will 
work  out  to  the  great  benefit  of  both  agriculture  and  the  manufactur- 
ing industries,  while  to  the  permanent  development  of  our  inland 
waterways  the  benefits  will  be  fundamental. 

KlTTREDGE    HASKINS. 

WILLIAM  W.  COCKS. 
RALPH  D.  COLE. 
ERNEST  M.  POLLARD. 
CLARENCE  C.  GILHAMS. 
JAMES  C.  MCLAUGHLIN. 
JOHN  W.  WEEKS. 
JOHN  LAMB. 
ASBURY  F.  LEVER. 
AUGUSTUS  O.  STANLEY. 
J.  THOMAS  HEFLIN. 

Your  committee  therefore  recommend  that  all  after  the  enacting 
clause  of  Senate  bill  4825  be  stricken  out  and  the  following  inserted 
in  lieu  thereof: 

That  the  consent  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  is  hereby  given  to  each  of 
the  seyeral  States  of  the  Union  to  enter  into  any  agreement  or  compact,  not  in  con- 
flict with  any  law  of  the  Cnited  States,  with  any  other  State  or  States,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  conserving  the  forests  and  the  water  supply  of  the  States  entering  into  such 
agreement  or  compact. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  sum  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  is  hereby  appropriated  and 
made  available  until  expended,  out  of  any  moneys  in  the  National  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  to  enable  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to  cooperate  with  any 
State  or  group  of  States,  when  requested  to  do  BO,  in  the  protection  from  fire  of  the 
forested  watersheds  of  navigable  streams,  and  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  hereby 
authorized,  and  on  such  conditions  as  he  deems  wise,  to  stipulate  and  agree  with  any 
State  or  group  of  States  to  cooperate  in  the  organization  and  maintenance  of  a  system 
of  fire  protection  on  any  private  or  state  forest  lands  within  such  State  or  States  and 
situated  upon  the  watershed  of  a  navigable  river:  Provided,  That  no  such  stipulation 
or  agreement  shall  be  made  with  any  State  which  has  not  provided  by  law  for  a 
system  of  forest-fire  protection:  Provided  further,  That  in  no  case  shall  the  amount 
expended  in  any  State  exceed  in  any  fiscal  year  the  amount  appropriated  by  that 
State  for  the  same  purpose  during  the  same  fiscal  year. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  for  the 'further  protection  of  the  water- 
sheds of  said  navigable  streams,  may,  in  his  discretion,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized, 


FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE   PROTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        127 

on  such  conditions  as  he  deems  wise,  to  stipulate  and  agree  to  administer  and  protect 
for  a  definite  term  of  years  any  private  forest  lands  situated  upon  any  such  watershed 
whereon  lands  may  be  permanently  reserved,  held,  and  administered  as  national 
forest  lands;  but  such  stipulation  or  agreement  shall  provide  that  the  owner  of  such 
private  lands  shall  cut  and  remove  the  timber  thereon  only  under  such  rules  and 
regulations,  to  be  expressed  in  the  stipulation  or  agreement,  as  will  provide  for  the 
protection  of  the  forest  in  the  aid  of  navigation:  Provided,  That  in  no  case  shall  the 
United  States  be  liable  for  any  damage  resulting  from  fire  or  any  other  cause. 

SEC.  4.  That  from  the  receipts  accruing  from  the  sale  or  disposal  of  any  products 
or  the  use  of  lands  or  resources  from  public  lands,  now  or  hereafter  to  be  set  aside  as 
national  forests  that  have  been  or  may  hereafter  be  turned  into  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  and  which  are  not  otherwise  appropriated,  there  is  hereby  appropriated 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  thirtieth,  nineteen  hundred  and  nine,  the  sum  of  one 
million  dollars,  and  for  each  fiscal  year  thereafter  a  sum  not  to  exceed  two  million 
dollars  for  use  in  the  examination,  survey,  and  acquirement  of  lands  located  on  the 
headwaters  of  navigable  streams  or  those  which  are  being  or  which  may  be  developed 
for  navigable  purposes:  Provided,  That  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  expire  by 
limitation  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  June,  nineteen  hundred  and  nineteen. 

SEC.  5.  That  a  commission,  to  be  known  as  the  National  Forest  Reservation  Commis- 
sion, consisting  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  the  Secretary 
of  Agriculture,  and  one  member  of  the  Senate,  to  be  selected  by  the  President  of  the 
Senate,  and  one  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  be  selected  by  the 
Speaker,  is  hereby  created  and  authorized  to  consider  and  pass  upon  such  lands  as 
may  be  recommended  for  purchase  as  provided  in  section  six  of  this  act,  and  to  fix 
the  price  or  prices  at  which  such  lands  may  be  purchased,  and  no  purchases  shall  be 
made  of  any  lands  until  such  lands  have  been  duly  approved  for  purchase  by  said 
commission:  Provided,  That  the  members  of  the  commission  herein  created"  shall 
serve  as  such  only  during  their  incumbency  in  their  respective  official  positions,  and 
any  vacancy  on  the  commission  shall  be  filled  in  the  manner  as  the  original  appoint- 
ment. 

SEC.  6.  That  the  commission  hereby  appointed  shall,  through  its  president,  annu- 
ally report  to  Congress,  not  later  than  the  first  Monday  in  December,  the  operations 
and  expenditures  of  the  commission,  in  detail,  during  the  preceding  fiscal  year. 

SEC.  7.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to 
examine,  locate,  and  recommend  for  purchase  such  lands  as  in  his  judgment  may  be 
necessary  to  the  regulation  of  the  flow  of  navigable  streams,  and  to  report  to  the 
National  Forest  Reservation  Commission  the  results  of  such  examinations:  Provided, 
That  before  any  lands  are  purchased  by  the  National  Forest  Reservation  Commission 
said  lands  shall  be  examined  by  the  Geological  Survey  and  a  report  made  to  the 
Secretary  of  Agriculture,  showing  that  the  control  of  such  lands  will  promote  or 
protect  the  navigation  of  streams  on  whose  watersheds  they  lie. 

SEC.  8.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  is  hereby  authorized  to  purchase,  in  the 
name  of  the  United  States,  such  lands  as  have  been  approved  for  purchase  by  the 
National  Forest  Reservation  Commission  at  the  price  or  prices  fixed  by  said  commis- 
sion: Provided,  That  no  deed  or  other  instrument  of  conveyance  shall  be  accepted  or 
approved  by  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  under  this  act  until  the  legislature  of  the 
State  in  which  the  land  lies  shall  have  consented  to  the  acquisition  of  such  land  by 
the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  navigability  of  navigable  streams. 

SEC  9.  That  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may  do  all  things  necessary  to  secure  the 
safe  title  in  the  United  States  to  the  lands  to  be  acquired  under  this  act;  but  no 
payment  shall  be  made  for  any  such  lands  until  the  title  shall  be  satisfactory  to  the 
Attorney-General  and  shall  be  vested  in  the  United  States. 

SEC.  10.  That  such  acquisition  may  in  any  case  be  conditioned  upon  the  exception 
and  reservation  to  the  owner,  from  whom  title  passes  to  the  United  States,  of  the 
minerals  and  of  the  merchantable  timber,  or  either  or  any  part  of  them,  within  or 
upon  such  lands  at  the  date  of  the  conveyance;  but  in  every  case  such  exception  and 
reservation,  and  the  time  within  which  such  timber  shall  be  removed,  and  the  rules 
and  regulations  under  which  the  cutting  and  removal  of  such  timber  and  the  mining 
and  removal  of  such  minerals  shall  be  done  shall  be  expressed  in  the  written  instru- 
ment of  conveyance,  and  thereafter  the  mining,  cutting,  and  removal  of  the  minerals 
and  timber  so  excepted  and  reserved  shall  be  done  only  under  and  in  obedience  to 
the  rules  and  regulations  so  expressed. 

SEC.  11.  That  whereas  small  areas  of  land  chiefly  valuable  for  agriculture  may  of 
necessity  or  by  inadvertence  be  included  in  tracts  acquired  under  this  act,  the  Sec- 
retary of  Agriculture  may,  in  his  discretion,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized,  upon  ap- 
plication or  otherwise,  to  examine  and  ascertain  the  location  and  extent  of  such 
areas  as  in  his  opinion  may  be  occupied  for  agricultural  purposes  without  injury  to 
the  forests  or  to  stream  flow  and  which  are  not  needed  for  public  purposes,  and  may 


128         FOKEST  LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

list  and  describe  the  same  by  metes  and  bounds,  or  otherwise,  and  offer  them  for 
gale  as  homesteads  at  their  true  value,  to  be  fixed  by  him,  to  actual  settlers,  in  tracts 
not  exceeding  eighty  acres  in  area,  under  such  joint  rules  and  regulations  as  the 
Secretary  of  Agriculture  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  may  prescribe;  and  in 
case  of  such  sale  the  jurisdiction  over  the  lands  sold  shall,  ipso  facto,  revert  to  the 
State  in  which  the  lands  sold  lie.  And  no  right,  title,  interest,  or  claim  in  or  to  any 
lands  acquired  under  this  act,  or  the  waters  thereon,  or  the  products,  resources,  or 
use  thereof  after  such  lands  shall  have  been  so  acquired,  shall  be  initiated  or  per- 
fected, except  as  in  this  section  provided. 

SEC.  12.  That,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  last  preceding  section,  the  lands 
acquired  under  this  act  shall  be  permanently  reserved,  held,  and  administered  as 
national  forest  lands  under  the  provisions  of  section  twenty-four  of  the  act  approved 
March  third,  eighteen  hundred  and  ninety -one  (volume  twenty -six,  Statutes  at 
Large,  page  eleven  hundred  and  three),  and  acts  supplemental  to  and  amendatory 
thereof.  And  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may  from  time  to  time  divide  the  lands 
acquired  under  this  act  into  such  specific  national  forests  and  so  designate  the  same 
as  he  may  deem  best  for  administrative  purposes. 

SEC.  13.  That  the  jurisdiction,  both  civil  and  criminal,  over  persons  upon  the  lands 
acquired  under  this  act  shall  not  be  affected  or  changed  by  their  permanent  reser- 
vation and  administration  as  national  forest  lands,  except  so  far  as  the  punishment 
of  offenses  against  the  United  States  is  concerned,  the  intent  and  meaning  of  this 
section  being  that  the  State  wherein  such  land  is  situated  shall  not,  by  reason  of  such 
reservation  and  administration,  lose  its  jurisdiction  nor  the  inhabitants  thereof  their 
rights  and  privileges  as  citizens  or  be  absolved  from  their  duties  as  citizens  of  the 
State. 

SEC.  14.  That  twenty-five  per  centum  of  all  moneys  received  during  any  fiscal  year 
from  each  national  forest  into  which  the  lands  acquired  under  this  act  may  from  time 
to  time  be  divided  shall  be  paid,  at  the  end  of  such  year,  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  the  State  in  which  such  national  forest  is  situated,  to  be  expended  as  the 
state  legislature  may  prescribe  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  schools  and  public  roads 
of  the  county  or  counties  in  which  such  national  forest  is  situated:  Provided,  That 
when  any  national  forest  is  in  more  than  one  State  or  county  the  distributive  share 
to  each  from  the  proceeds  of  such  forest  shall  be  proportional  to  its  area  therein: 
Provided  further,  That  there  shall  not  be  paid  to  any  State  for  any  county  an  amount 
equal  to  more  than  forty  per  centum  of  the  total  income  of  such  county  from  all  other 
sources. 

SEC.  15.  That  a  sum  sufficient  to  pay  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  commission 
and  its  members,  not  to  exceed  an  annual  expenditure  of  twenty-five  thousand  dol- 
lars, is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated. Said  appropriation  shall  be  immediately  available  and  shall  be  paid  out 
on  the  audit  and  order  of  the  president  of  the  said  commission ;  which  audit  and 
order  shall  be  conclusive  and  binding  upon  all  departments  as  to  the  correctness  of 
the  accounts  of  said  commission. 

Amend  the  title  so  as  to  read:  u  An  act  to  enable  any  State  to  co- 
operate with  any  other  State  or  States,  or  with  the  United  States,  for 
the  protection  of  the  watersheds  of  navigable  streams,  and  to  appoint 
a  commission  for  the  acquisition  of  lands  for  the  purpose  of  conserv- 
ing the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers." 


VIEWS  OF  THE  MINOEITY. 

In  the  first  session  of  the  Sixtieth  Congress,  reporting  upon  a  reso- 
lution offered  by  Mr.  Bartlett,  of  Georgia,  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  of  the  House  of  Representatives  declared  it  to  be  their 
opinion  that — 

The  Federal  Government  has  no  power  to  acquire  lands  within  a  State  solely  for 
forest  reserves,  but  under  its  constitutional  power  over  navigation  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment may  appropriate  foT  the  purchase  of  lands  and  forest  reserves  in  a  State, 
provided  it  is  made  clearly  to  appear  that  such  lands  and  forest  reserves  have  a 
direct  and  substantial  connection  with  the  conservation  and  improvement  of  the 
navigability  of  a  river  actually  navigable  in  whole  or  in  part. 

Bearing  that  opinion  in  mind  (and  it  has  met  with  universal  acquies- 
cence), it  becomes  of  the  very  first  importance,  in  considering  a  bill  for 
the  purchase  of  forest  reserves,  to  determine  whether  such  reserves 
' '  have  a  direct  and  substantial  connection  with  the  conservation  and 
improvement  of  the  navigability  of  a  river  actually  navigable  in  whole 
or  in  part."  The  statement  that  such  connection  does  exist  has  been 
so  confidently  assumed  and  so  often  repeated  that  those  who  have 
given  but  a  casual  or  superficial  study  to  the  subject  have  come  to 
regard  it  as  an  established  and  admitted*  fact. 

The  truth  is  that  it  is  neither  established  nor  admitted.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  proposition  is  very  earnestly  disputed  lay  men  whose  opin- 
ions are  entitled  to  great  weight.  It  is  perhaps  not  overstating  it  to 
say  that  a  majority  of  the  riparian  engineers  who  have  given  the  sub- 
ject careful  s.tudy"are  of  the  opinion  that  forests  do  not  exercise  any 
effective  control  in  either  extremes  of  high  water  or  of  low  water. 
Lieut.  Col.  H.  M.  Chittenden,  of  the  United  States  Army  Engineer 
Corps,  who  has  been  studying  the  control  of  floods  in  rivers  for  many 
years,  is  perhaps  the  most  conspicuous  exponent  of  this  view  in  our 
own  country,  having  recently  read  a  paper  before  the  American 
Society  of  Engineers  in  which  is  presented  a  powerful  and  to  many 
minds  a  convincing  argument  in  support  of  his  contention.  In  Europe 
the  same  opinion  is  entertained  by  M.  Ernst  Lauda,  chief  of  the 
hydrographic  bureau  of  the  Austrian  Government,  who  has  recentl}r 
made  an  exhaustive  report  upon  the  great  floods  of  the  Danube,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  says: 

It  is  universally  believed  that  forests  have  an  influence  in  moderating  and  prevent- 
ing floods,  and  deforestation  upon  their  origin  and  more  frequent  occurrence,  yet  this 
belief  is  not  better  established  from  a  hydrographic  standpoint  than  the  entirely  un- 
founded belief  that  the  floods  of  the  past  few  years  in  Austria  are  due  to  deforesta- 
tion. Against  the  popular  belief  in  the  favorable  influence  of  forests  upon  floods 
resulting  from  excessive  rains  may  be  adduced  the  interesting  fact  that  lands  richest 
in  forests  are  frequently  visited  by  the  severest  floods. 

In  support  of  this  opinion  he  traces  the  history  of  the  Danube  River 
for  eight  hundred  j^ears,  drawing  the  conclusion  that  floods  were  for- 
merly just  as  frequent  and  just  as  high  in  that  river  as  they  have  been 
in  recent  times.     He  cites  the  records  of  the  river  Seine  also  showing 
72538— AGR— 09 9  129 


130        FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

even  greater  flood  height  in  the  sixteenth  century  than  any  that  oc- 
curred in  the  nineteenth.  As  deforestation  in  the  watersheds  in  both 
the  Danube  and  the  Seine  is  vastly  greater  now  than  it  was  eight  cen- 
turies or  three  centuries  ago,  the  testimony  of  the  actual  records  pre- 
sented by  M.  Lauda  can  not  be  lightly  set  aside.  Nor  can  it  be  said 
that  M.  Lauda  stands  alone  in  his  opinion,  for  at  the  Tenth  Interna- 
tional Congress  of  Navigation,  held  at  Milan  in  1905,  papers  upon  this 
subject  were  presented  by  representatives  from  France,  Germanj^, 
Italy,  Austria,  and  Russia,  and  while  all  the  writers  favored  forest 
culture  the  opinion  was  practically  unanimous  that  forests  exert  no 
appreciable  influence  upon  the  stream  flow  of  rivers. 

Indeed,  Colonel  Chittenden,  who  has  perhaps  studied  foreign  reports 
upon  this  subject  more  carefully  than  any  other  American,  declares 
that  he  is  unable  to  find  among  the  river  engineers  of  Europe  any  that 
advocate  forests  as  a  corrective  for  the  extremes  of  flow  in  our  rivers. 
He  cites  an  exceedingly  elaborate  investigation  instituted  by  Napoleon 
III,  as  a  result  of  which  the  French  engineers,  after  an  exhaustive 
study  of  the  subject,  united  in  the  opinion  that  whatever  value  forests 
might  have  locally  in  preventing  the  erosion  of  steep  slopes  they  could 
not  be  relied  upon  in  any  degree  to  diminish  the  great  floods  from 
which  France  had  been  suffering,  and  that  any  measures  which  might 
be  taken  in  the  line  of  reforestation  would  have  no  appreciable  effect. 
The  report  of  these  engineers  quoted  a  very  elaborate  and  exhaustive 
work  upon  the  floods  of  French  rivers,  going  back  over  six  hundred 

Ssars,  in  which  it  was  conclusively  shown  that  former  floods  were 
rger  than  those  of  the  present  time.  As  a  result  of  this  report  it  is 
declared  that  no  French  project  of  river  improvement,  either  for  flood 
prevention  or  as  an  insurance  against  low  water  in  navigable  rivers, 
has  embraced  reforestation  as  an  essential  part  or  even  any  part  at  all. 
In  our  own  country,  where  river  records  have  been  kept  but  a  com- 
paratively short  time,  the  data  are  of  course  insufficient  to  warrant 
any  very  sweeping  generalizations.  We  believe  it  is  admitted,  how- 
ever, that  the  records  of  the  Ohio  River,  which  extend  over  a  period 
of  forty  years,  show  greater  extremes  of  both  high  water  and  low 
water  during  the  first  twenty  years  of  that  period  than  during  the  last 
twenty  years,  thus  bearing  out  in  a  degree  at  least  the  conclusions 
reached'  through  a  study  of  the  extended  periods  of  observation  of 
European  rivers.  While  it  can  not  be  regarded,  therefore,  as  full}7 
established,  we  submit  that  the  weight  of  expert  testimon}^  and  the 

Ereponderance  of  evidence  as  deduced  from  actual  observation  is  very 
irgely  in  favor  of  the  proposition  that  forests  do  not  exercise  an 
appreciable  influence  upon  the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers. 

But  the  argument  against  the  proposition  in  the  bill  under  consid- 
eration by  no  means  rests  alone  upon  the  contention  that  there  is  no 
vital  connection  between  the  forests  and  the  maintenance  of  naviga- 
bility in  navigable  streams.  It  is  a  conceded  fact  that  at  the  present 
time,  in  the  southern  Appalachians  at  least,  the  menace  to  the  streams 
comes  from  the  operations  of  the  farmer  an'd  not  from  those  of  the 
lumberman.  It  is  the  tracts  on  the  lower  slopes  of  the  mountains 
which  have  been  cleared  for  farming  from  which  the  silt  is  washed 
into  the  streams  and  not  from  the  upper  slopes,  which  are  covered 
with  trees.  Now,  it  is  not  denied  that  if  these  lower  slopes  are  prop- 
erly farmed  the  soil  will  not  wash  appreciably,  and  the  streams  there- 
fore will  receive  no  damage.  It  is  not  denied  either  that  if  the  steeper 


FOEEST  LANDS   FOE  THE    PEOTECTION    OF   WATERSHEDS.        131 

slopes,  which  never  can  be  farmed,  are  protected  from  fire  they  will 
always  be  forested,  or  at  least  covered  with  a  growth  that  will  prevent 
erosion. 

Remembering  these  two  undenied  facts,  can  it  be  argued  that  it  is 
necessary  for  the  Government  to  purchase  either  the  upper  or  the 
lower  slopes  of  the  mountains  in  order  to  protect  the  streams?  The 
lower  slopes  are  more  valuable  for  farming  than  for  timber  raising  if 
they  can  be  prevented  from  erosion.  Since  they  can  be  so  prevented 
by  proper  methods  of  tillage,  would  it  not  be  better  national  economy 
for  the  Federal  Government  to  help  teach  the  farmers  of  that  region 
how  to  till  their  soil  in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  erosion  and  maintain 
its  fertility  than  it  would  be  to  buy  out  those  farmers  and  return  the 
land  to  the  wilderness?  And  since  the  upper  slopes  will  always  have  a 
forest  cover,  if  protected  from  fire,  would  it  not  be  better  national 
economy  for  the  Federal  Government  to  lend  its  aid  to  such  protec- 
tion at  a  comparatively  trifling  cost  (it  is  estimated  by  the  Forest  Serv- 
ice that  the  cost  of  an  effective  fire  patrol  would  not  exceed  2  cents  per 
acre  per  annum)  than  to  buy  the  land  at  a  very  great  initial  expendi- 
ture, with  the  cost  of  fire  protection  to  be  added  as  a  fixed  and  con- 
tinuing charge?  Would  it  not  be  better  for  the  States  concerned  to 
have  the  lands  remain  in  private  ownership,  supporting  a  larger  popu- 
lation than  could  possibh7  be  maintained  if  the  policy  of  the  pending 
bill  is  pursued,  and  retaining  the  value  of  the  propert}7  on  the  tax 
rolls? 

The  very  best  that  can  be  said  in  support  of  the  proposition  for  the 
federal  purchase  of  these  lands  is  that  as  a  result  of  such  purchase  the 
impairment  of  navigable  streams  may  possibly  be  diminished  or 
retarded.  But  will  this  vague  general  possibility,  or  probability,  of 
a  distant  and  shadowy  good  offset  the  immediate  and  certain  evil  of 
driving  large  numbers  of  people  away  from  homes  which  in  many 
instances  have  been  occupied  for  generations,  of  reducing  the  produc- 
tivit}7  of  large  areas,  and  of  taking  large  amounts  of  property  from 
local  tax  rolls? 

It  is  cited  as  a  special  merit  in  the  pending  bill  that  the  money  to 
carry  it  into  effect  is  taken  not  from  the  General  Treasury  but  from 
the  receipts  of  the  existing  Forest  Service,  the  agreeable  inference 
therefrom  being  that  the  proposed  new  forests  can  be  bought  without 
any  real  draft  upon  the  Treasury.  We  are  unable  to  see  the  force  of 
this  argument.  The  receipts  from  the  present  national  forests  are  not 
a  new  source  of  income  conjured  into  existence  by  the  pending  bill. 
On  the  contrary,  these  receipts  are  a  part  of  the  national  revenues 
which  are  paid  into  the  Federal  Treasury,  just  as  are  the  revenues  from 
customs  dues  or  internal  taxation  To  regard  the  income  from  the 
forests  as  a  special  fund  which  can  be  diverted  without  any  real  effect 
upon  the  Treasury  balances  is  a  palpable  fiction,  which  if  adopted 
would  expose  the  Congress  to  the  charge  of  doing  by  indirection  what 
it  was  not  willing  to  do  directly.  If  we  are  going  to  enter  upon  this 
policy,  let  us  do  it  openly  and  boldly  with  a  full  understanding  of 
what  it  will  cost  and  where  the  money  is  to  corne  from. 

In  its  terms,  the  life  of  the  measure  being  limited  to  ten  years  and 
the  expenditures  under  it  restricted  in  the  aggregate  to  $19,000,000, 
this  bill  is  extremely  conservative  compared  with  others  that  have  been 
introduced  upon  the  same  subject.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  it 
is  applicable  to  every  section  of  the  country,  and  that  the  foremost  ad- 


132        FOKEST   LANDS   FOE   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

vocates  of  the  policy  which  it  initiates  maintain  that  the  policy  can 
only  be  carried  to  a  successful  issue  through  the  purchase  of  many 
million  acres  of  land.  The  last  official  report  upon  the  subject  recom- 
mended the  purchase  of  5,000,000  acres  in  the  southern  Appalachians 
and  600,000  acres  in  the  White  Mountains,  the  average  estimated  cost 
being  $3.50  an  acre.  But  it  states  also  (on  page  32)  that  there  are 
75,000,000  acres  in  these  mountains  which  "will have  to  be  given  pro- 
tection before  the  hard-wood  supply  is  on  a  safe  footing  and  before  the 
watersheds  of  the  important  streams  are  adequately  safeguarded." 
While  no  one  now  advocates  the  purchase  of  this  enoVmous  area,  yet 
with  the  policy  once  entered  upon  and  backed  by  the  tremendous  polit- 
ical and  industrial  influences  that  can  be  brought  to  its  support,  who 
can  give  assurance  that  such  purchases  may  not  be  made  in  the  future 
and  the  cost  of  this  policy  be  thereby  extended  from  tens  of  millions 
to  hundreds  of  millions? 

Notwithstanding  the  enormous  expenditure  which  will  almost  in- 
evitably result  from  the  entrance  upon  this  polic}7,  it  might  still  be 
warranted  if  it  were  a  demonstrated  fact  that  the  maintenance  of  the 
forested  watersheds  is  the  only  way  by  which  the  filling  up  of  navi- 
gable streams  and  the  destructive  erosion  of  large  sections  of  our 
country  can  be  prevented,  and  that  the  only  means  by  which  forested 
watersheds  can  be  maintained  is  through  federal  ownership  of  such 
watersheds.  Believing,  however,  that  this  destructive  erosion  and 
consequent  silting  of  rivers  can  be  prevented  by  the  introduction  of 
proper  methods  of  farming  and  by  adequate  fire  protection,  both  of 
which  can  be  accomplished  through  the  cooperation  of  state  and  fed- 
eral agencies  at  comparatively  little  expense,  we  are  unwilling  to  con- 
sent to  a  measure  which  commits  the  Government  to  a  policy  which 
we  believe  to  be  both  unwise  and  unnecessary. 

CHAS.  F.  SCOTT. 

WM.  LORIMER. 

GEO.  W.  COOK. 

JACK  BEALL. 

W.  W.  RUCKER. 


VIEWS   OF  MB.  HAWLEY. 

In  addition  to  joining  in  the  dissent  of  the  minority  and  commending 
its  vigorous  presentation  of  the  matter,  1  desire  to  add  the  following 
observations: 

This  bill  provides  for  the  acquisition  of  lands  anywhere  in  the 
United  States  for  the  establishment  of  new  forest  reserves  or  national 
forests.  These  lands  are  to  be  acquired  from  the  present  private 
owners  upon  the  recommendation  of  a  commission,  as  provided  in  the 
bill.  It  is  stated  that  the  purpose  of  such  acquisitions  is  to  preserve 
and  improve  the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers,  apparently  following 
the  opinion  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House,  as 
expressed  in  House  Report  No.  1514  of  this  Congress.  It  is  inferred 
that  if  the  policy  proposed  in  the  bill  is  carried  out,  under  the  terms 
and  by  the  means  therein  set  forth,  that  in  due  time  extremes  of  high 
and  low  water  in  navigable  rivers  will  be  regulated,  and  the  hindrance 
to  navigation  due  to  the  deposit  of  silt  will  be  controlled.  The  vital 
question  at  this  point  is,  "  Will  this  be  the  result?"  If  not,  then  the 
theory  on  which  the  bill  is  based  fails,  and  its  justification  also  fails, 
under  report  No.  1514,  referred  to  above.  Upon  this  relation  between 
the  proposed  control  and  navigation  or  stream  flow  the  authorities 
disagree,  as  set  forth  at  length  in  the  proceeding  opinion  of  the 
minority.  And  no  agreement  exists  as  to  where  the  necessary  lands 
lie  or  as  to  what  is  their  nature. 

The  bill  also  provides  that  for  the  same  purposes  the  Government 
may  administer  private  forest  lands  adjacent  to  the  lands  in  the  pro- 
posed new  reserves,  for  a  term  of  years,  upon  agreement  with  the 
owners.  There  is  little  evidence  to  show  whether  few  or  many  owners 
of  forest  lands  will  so  agree,  and  in  my  judgment  not  many  will  accept 
the  terms  proposed.  If  they  do  not,  the  amount  of  land  necessary  to 
be  acquired  by  the  National  Government  in  order  to  carry  out  the 
policy  in  the  bill  will  be  increased  and  add  largely  to  the  appropria- 
tions required. 

It  is  proposed  to  appropriate  from  the  revenues  of  existing  forest 
reserves  $1,000,000  for  the  first  year,  and  $2,000,000  annually  there- 
after for  a  period  of  nine  years,  in  all  $19,000,000.  In  view  of  the 
large  areas  it  is  proposed  to  control,  this  amount  must  be  regarded 
rather  as  an  experimental  appropriation  than  as  a  sum  adequate  to 
accomplish  the  purposes  of  the  bill.  The  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
Agriculture,  made  in  compliance  with  the  provision  in  the  agricultural 
appropriation  bill,  approved  March  4,  1907,  which  directed  him  to 
make  an  investigation  of  this  question  (see  S.  Doc.  91,  60th  Cong.,  1st 
sess.),  on  pages  30,  31,  and  32,  says: 

AREA    AND   LOCATION   OF   LANDS   NEEDING   PROTECTION. 

In  order  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  lands  primarily  available  for  forests  in  the 
Southern  Appalachian  and  White  Mountain  regions,  a  reconnaissance  survey  has 
been  made,  as  a  result  of  which  the  accompanying  maps  have  been  prepared.  Maps 
I  and  II  show  for  the  two  regions  the  lands  to  be  classed  as  distinctly  mountainous 
and  nonagricultural. 

133 


134        FOBEST   LANDS   FOE   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 


The  main  centers  for  such  mountainous  and  nonagricultural  lands  in  the  Southern 
Appalachians  are,  first,  the  Blue  Ridge  and  Great  Smoky  Mountains  of  North 
Carolina  and  Tennessee,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia;  second,  the  Allegheny  Moun- 
tains of  eastern  and  southern  West  Virginia  and  western  Virginia,  and,  third,  the 
Cumberland  Mountains  of  eastern  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  northern  Alabama. 
These  lands  include  the  main  mountain  ranges,  and  the  roughest,  wildest  land  of  the 
region.  Naturally,  they  embrace  a  smaller  proportion  of  agricultural  lands  than 
other,  parts  of  the  region,  and  those  which  they  do  embrace  have  for  the  most  part 
been  eliminated,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  irregular  boundaries  on  the  map.  Regard- 
less of  these  eliminations  they  still  include  some  small  bodies  of  agricultural  lands. 

These  areas,  though  they  contain  only  40  per  cent  of  the  timbered  land  of  the 
Southern  Appalachians,  include  almost  all  of  the  virgin  timber  lands,  because  the 
virgin  timber  which  remains  is  mostly  situated  on  the  high  mountains.  Even  though 
these  lands  do  produce  an  inferior  grade  of  timber,  their  sole  use  must  be  for  timber 
production.  There  is  no  other  crop  which  will  hold  the  gravelly,  stony  soil  in  place 
and  keep  it  from  clogging  the  channels  of  streams  and  covering  the  agricultural 
valleys  which  lie  below.  These  nonagricultural  and  mountainous  lands,  approxi- 
mating 23,000,000  acres,  give  rise  to  all  the  important  streams  which  have  their 
source  in  the  Southern  Appalachians.  They  are  therefore  the  vital  portions  of  these 
mountains.  Whatever  work  is  done  to  protect  the  Southern  Appalachians  must 
center  in  these  areas.  The  proportion  to  which  these  lands  fall  into  different  States 
and  watersheds  is  shown  in  the  following  tables: 

TABLE  4. — Area,  by  States,  of  nonagricultural  and  mountainous  lands  in  the  Southern 
Appalachians. 


State. 

Area. 

State. 

Area. 

Acres. 
4  962  000 

West  Virginia 

Acres. 
5  797  000 

Virginia 

3  882  000 

590  000 

491,000 

277,000 

Georgia                                        ..  . 

1  806  000 

1  623  000 

Total 

23  310  000 

North  Carolina  

3,  882,  000 

TABLE  5. — Area,  by  watersheds,  of  nonagricultural  and  mountainous  lands  in  the 
Southern  Appalachians. 


Watershed. 

Area. 

Watershed. 

Area. 

Tennessee  

Acres. 
2,489,000 
2  759  000 

Yadkin  

Acres. 
428,000 
20  000 

Holston  

682,000 

Catawba  

502,000 

James  

1,  138,  000 

Broad  

299.000 

431  000 

2  095,000 

New  (Kanawha) 

3  2^5  000 

345  000 

Big  Sandy  

1,347,000 

Little  Pigeon  

19,000 

1  066  000 

1,000 

Little  Tennessee  
French  Broad  

1,307,000 
623,000 

Savannah  
Guyandotte  

860,000 
660,000 

Pigeon    

255  000 

Saluda  

100,000 

Little  River  

202,000 
987  000 

Kentucky  
Coosa 

156,000 
767  000 

Nolichucky 

379  OOQ 

117  000 

Total               

23,  310,  000 

151  000 

While  the  lands  shown  on  the  map  are  all  in  need  of  protection,  they  are  not  all 
of  equal  inportance  when  all  economic  points  of  view  are  considered. 

The  lands  to  be  classed  as  of  first  importance  include  the  mountain  ridges  mainly, 
but  extend  considerable  distances  down  the  slopes  in  those  localities  where  the  soil 
is  particularly  subject  to  erosion  and  on  the  watersheds  of  streams  of  greatest  impor- 
tance for  water  power  or  navigation.  The  area  of  such  lands  does  not  exceed 
5,000,000  acres. 

The  same  class  of  land  for  the  White  Mountain  region  is  shown  in  Map  II.  It 
lies  in  both  New  Hampshire  and  Maine.  Excluding  the  numerous  bodies  of  water, 
their  area  in  New  Hampshire  is  1,457,000  acres,  and  in  Maine  700,000  acres,  mak- 


FOREST    LANDS   FOR    THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        135 

ing  a  total  of  2,157,000  acres.     The  proportion  in  which  this  falls  in  the  five  water 
systems  included  is  as  follows: 

Acres, 

Connecticut 429, 000 

Merrimac 264, 000 

Saco 332,000 

Androscoggin 1, 002, 000 

Kennebec 130, 000 


Total •_ 2,157,000 

There  is  also  shown  on  this  map  an  area  embracing  only  the  four  main  ranges  of 
the  White  Mountains.  A  few  thousand  acres  of  this  area  lie  in  Maine.  All  the  rest 
is  in  New  Hampshire.  This  principal  White  Mountain  area  covers  668,000  acres, 
and,  considering  all  economic  points  of  view,  is  the  most  important  part  of  the  region. 


TREATMENT   OF   THE    REGION. 


The  areas  indicated  in  the  preceding  section,  23,310,000  acres  iii  the  Southern 
Appalachians  and  2,157,000  acres  in  the  White  Mountains,  do  not  include  all  the 
mountainous  timber  lands  of  the  Appalachians.  As  is  discussed  under  the  heading 
"Importance  of  Appalachian  forests  for  hard-wood  supply,"  there  are  probably 
75,000,000  acres  in  this  mountain  system  more  important  for  timber  production  than 
for  any  other  purpose.  This  area  will  have  to  be  given  protection  before  the  hard- 
wood supply  is  on  a  safe  footing  and  before  the  watersheds  of  the  important  streams 
are  adequately  safeguarded. 

If  it  is  a  wise  policy  for  the  Government  to  control  by  purchase  or 
agreement  with  owners  such  large  areas  of  land,  and  in  addition 
thereto  extensive  areas  included  in  this  bill,  but  not  included  in  the 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  then  it  should  be  undertaken 
on  a  scale  commensurate  with  its  proposed  final  extent,  and  for  which 
appropriations  many  times  the  present  amount  will  be  required. 

This  bill  if  enacted  into  law  will  inaugurate  a  system  of  new  forest 
reserves  whose  final  limits  will  include  the  lands  the  administration  of 
which  by  the  National  Government  may  be  said  to  conserve  and  regu- 
late stream  flow  and  assist  in  maintaining  the  navigability  of  navigable 
rivers.  In  my  opinion  the  proposed  appropriation  of  $19,000,000  is 
sufficient  only  to  make  a  beginning  and  to  commit  the  Government  to 
the  policy.  It  initiates  one  of  the  most  extensive  and  momentous 
movements  ever  begun  in  this  country  by  legislative  action.  It  seems 
to  me  there  of  necessit}*  should  be  required  prior  thereto  an  exceed- 
ingly thoroughgoing  and  exhaustive  investigation  by  competent  author- 
ity of  all  the  problems  involved,  for  the  information  of  the  country 
and  of  Congress,  and  if  thereafter  the  proposed  policy  is  considered 
wise  and  within  the  powers  of  Congress,  a  measure  should  be  prepared 
that  will  present  the  matter  in  all  its  magnificence  to  the  country  and 
provide  adequate  appropriations  for  executing  the  policy,  and  granting 
all  necessary  authority  therefor. 

Does  the  present  bill  authorize  the  commission  to  use  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  to  obtain  from  unwilling  owners  the  lands  deemed 
necessary?  If  not,  is  not  the  omission  of  such  authority  an  error? 

I  fear,  also,  that  when  the  Government  goes  into  the  market  to 
purchase  from  private  parties  the  lands  for  the  new  forest  reserves 
great  difficulties  will  be  encountered,  arising  out  of  speculations  in 
these  lands. 

The  committee  have  held  many  hearings  on  this  subject,  the  net 
result  of  which  discloses  the  lack  of  accurate  and  adequate  data.  For 
the  purpose  of  securing  carefully  collected  and  scientifically  presented 


136         FOREST   LANDS   FOB   THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

information  on  all  phases  of  the  subject,  I  introduced  a  bill  at  the  last 
session,  and  the  fact  that  the  information  called  for  by  it  is  not  availa- 
ble^eems  to  justify  the  printing  of  it  as  an  appendix. 
Truly  yours, 

W.  C.  HAWLEY. 


[H.  R.  21877.    Sixtieth  Congress,  first  session.] 

A  BILL  To  provide  for  obtaining  certain  information  relative  to  the  White  Mountain,  Appalachian, 
and  other  watersheds  and  forests. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  .Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  a  commission  consisting  of  three  men,  whose  duties  are 
defined  below,  shall  be  appointed  as  follows:  One  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  one  by  the  President  of  the  Senate,  and  one  by  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives. 

,,,  SEC.  2.  That  the  duties  of  this  commission  shall  be  as  follows: 
r  First.  Personally  to  visit  every  watershed  in  the  States  named  in  section  seven  of 
this  act  supposed  to  have  influence  in  regulating  the  flow  of  waters  and  conservation 
of  water  supply  in  the  maintenance  of  the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers,  and  for 
other  purposes. 

Second.  To  establish  by  metes  and  bounds  the  limits  of  such  watersheds  and  to 
actually  ascertain  the  areas  included. 

Third.  To  ascertain  how  much  of  such  areas  are  now  forested  and  the  kinds  and 
sizes  of  the  trees  and  other  growths  thereon. 

Fourth.  The  general  nature  and  character  of  the  soil  of  these  watersheds  and  the 
general  topography  of  said  watersheds. 

Fifth.  To  ascertain  how  much  of  such  areas  are  now  deforested  and  the  condition 
of  the  deforested  lands. 

Sixth.  To  ascertain  what  portions  of  the  deforested  areas  can  be  reforested,  how 
much  can  not  be  reforested,  and  the  probable  cost  and  period  of  time  required  for 
reforestation  of  such  areas. 

Seventh.  To  ascertain  whether  these  watersheds  have  a  definite  and  demonstrable 
physical  connection,  mediate  or  immediate,  with  the  maintenance  and  improvement 
of  the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers. 

Eighth.  To  ascertain  as  accurately  as  possible  the  value  of  the  lands  of  each  water- 
shed and  the  price  at  which  they  can  be  acquired. 

Ninth.  To  ascertain  whether  any  of  these  watershed  areas  will  be  transferred  to 
the  United  States,  either  as  a  gift  or  to  be  placed  under  the  control  of  the  United 
States,  and  if  so,  for  what  length  of  time. 

Tenth.  If  the  question  implied  in  paragraph  seven  is  decided  affirmatively,  to 
ascertain  whether  the  control  of  the  watershed  areas  will  be  sufficient  for  the  con- 
servation and  improvement  of  the  navigability  of  navigable  rivers,  or  whether  the 
control  of  areas  below  and  other  than  the  watershed  areas  will  be  necessary  for  that 
purpose.  If  areas  other  than  watershed  areas  are  decided  to  be  necessary,  then  such 
areas  shall  be  definitely  located  and  measured,  and  their  values  and  the  prices  for 
which  they  can  be  bought  shall  be  ascertained. 

Eleventh.  To  ascertain  the  annual  precipitation  on  each  watershed  area  as  nearly 
as  possible  and  for  as  long  a  period  of  years  preceding  as  possible. 

Twelfth.  To  estimate  the  probable  annual  revenues,  if  any,  from  such  watershed 
and  other  areas  and  the  cost  of  administration  yearly  if  acquired  by  the  Government. 

Thirteenth.  To  ascertain  the  miles  on  each  river  supposed  to  be  directly  or  indi- 
rectly benefited  that  are  now  navigable,  and  the  number  of  months  each  such  river 
is  navigable,  the  depth  of  water  for  each  month,  and  the  draft  of  vessels  using  same. 

Fourteenth.  To  ascertain  the  increase  or  diminution  of  the  miles  of  navigable 
water  in  each  such  river  and  the  depths  of  water  therein  for  the  longest  period  of 
years  possible. 

Fifteenth.  To  ascertain  the  amount  of  commerce  carried,  by  months,  on  each  such 
river  for  the  longest  period  of  years  possible. 

Sixteenth.  To  ascertain  the  effects  of  erosion  due  to  the  denudation  of  watershed 
or  other  areas  and  the  damage  effected  thereby. 

Seventeenth.  To  ascertain  what  effect  on  high  and  low  water  in  rivers  the  drainage 
and  tiling  of  farm  land  has  had. 

Eighteenth.  To  ascertain  who  are  the  present  owners  of  the  areas  referred  to  in 
this  act  and  when  they  obtained  such  lands. 


FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE  PROTECTION   OF   WATERSHEDS.        137 

Nineteenth.  To  ascertain  whether  large  tracts  have  been  recently  acquired  and 
whether  options  have  been  taken  on  the  lands,  and  if  so,  in  what  quantities. 

Twentieth.  To  ascertain  the  amount  of  timber  cwt  on  the  watersheds  aforesaid 
yearly  and  the  rate  of  such  cutting  for  a  period  of  years  as  long  as  possible. 

Twenty-first.  To  ascertain  the  facts  in  the  development  of  water  power  in  such 
areas. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  said  commission  shall  have  authority  to  employ  expert  and 
unskilled  labor  necessary  to  enable  them  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon  them 
and  to  fix  compensation  therefor. 

SEC.  4.  That  each  of  said  three  commissioners  shall  be  paid  at  the  rate  of  five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  month  and  shall  receive  compensation  for  necessary  personal  expenses 
incurred  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties. 

SEC.  5.  That  there  is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not 
otherwise  appropriated,  the  sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  to  provide  payment  for 
services  and  expenses  authorized  by  this  act. 

SEC.  6.  That  said  commission  shall  report  completely,  finally,  and  in  full  on  or 
before  February  first,  nineteen  hundred  and  nine. 

SEG.  7.  That  the  watersheds  and  other  areas  described  in  this  act,  and  which  the 
commission  herein  provided  shall  investigate  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  are  those 
located  in  the  following  States:  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  West  Virginia,  Virginia,  Maryland,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Alabama. 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  HAUGEN. 

Before  entering  upon  such  a  gigantic  scheme  as  is  contemplated  in 
the  proposed  bill,  one  which  in  the  end  in  all  probabilities  will  involve 
the  expenditure  of  not  millions  but  billions  of  dollars,  Congress  should 
have  detailed  and  accurate  information  in  order  that  the  matter  might 
be  carefully,  fully,  and  intelligently  considered.  It  should  at  least 
have  data,  or  reliable  estimates,  as  to  the  probable  cost,  the  number  of 
acres  that  should  be  purchased  for  the  preservation  of  the  forests 
within  the  watersheds  of  the  navigable  rivers  not  only  in  the  White 
Mountains  and  the  Southern  Appalachian  Mountains,  but  over  the 
whole  country.  The  only  official  information  available  at  the  present 
time  is  that  obtained  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  March  4,  1907, 
which  "  requires  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  to  investigate  the  water- 
sheds of  the  Southern  Appalachian  and  White  Mountains  and  to 
report  to  Congress  the  area  and  natural  conditions  of  said  watersheds, 
the  price  at  which  the  same  can  be  purchased  by  the  Government,  and 
the  advisability  of  the  Government  purchasing  and  setting  apart  the 
same  as  national  forest  reserves  for  the  purpose  of  conserving  and 
regulating  the  water  supply  and  flow  of  said  streams  in  the  interest 
of  agriculture,  water  power,  and  navigation." 

In  this  report  the  Secretary  recommends  that  the  Government 
acquire  an  area  of  about  6,000,000  acres  at  once,  and  states  that  an 
area  of  about  75,000,000  acres  will  have  to  be  given  protection.  The 
Secretary  has  this  to  say  (p.  32): 

It  is  an  enormous  undertaking  to  bring  this  immense  area  of  75, 000,000  acres  under 
proper  conditions  of  protection  and  use.  If  the  Government  owned  the  land  the 
problem  would  be  a  comparatively  simple  one  under  our  present  forest  policy. 

I  conclude  from  this  that  it  is  necessary  to  purchase  the  75,000,000 
acres  to  begin  with.  As  to  the  method  of  acquirement  and  cost  of 
lands  the  Secretary  has  this  to  say: 

WHITE    MOUNTAINS. 

The  timber  lands  of  the  White  Mountains  are  in  the  main  held  by  a  few  large  com- 
panies, nearly  all  of  whom  are  cutting  extensively  on  the  spruce  stands  for  pulp  or 
lumber  manufacture.  The  plants  of  some  of  these  companies  represent  an  investment 
of  several  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Manifestly,  in  negotiating  for  these  lands,  in 
so  far  as  they  bear  uncut  timber,  the  value  of  the  plant  must  enter  into  the  consid- 
eration. In  addition,  the  stumpage  value  of  spruce  ranges  from  $4.50  to  $6  or  $7  per 
thousand.  This  would  give  the  be&t  stands  a  value  of  $75  to  $125  or  more  per  acre. 
*  *  *  •*  -:f  *  * 

The  hard  woods  of  the  White  Mountains,  of  which  there  is  a  large  area,  have  not 
the  value  of  spruce,  nor  are  they  as  yet  being  extensively  cut.  Their  stumpage  value 
is  from  $2.50  to  $4  per  thousand,  depending  upon  location,  stand,  and  quality. 

The  cut-over  lands  have  a  value  ranging  from  $1  to  $6  or  $8  per  acre,  depending 
upon  the  condition  of  the  timber  growth  upon  them. 

The  question  of  the  acquirement  of  timber  lands  by  the  Government  has  been  con- 
sidered with  the  principal  owners  of  the  region.  While  unwilling  to  dispose  of  their 

138 


FOBEST   LANDS   FOB   THE  PBOTECTION   OF   WATEBSHEDS.        139 

vi  gin  timber  lands,  except  at  very  high  prices,  they  are  willing  to  consider  the  sale 
of  their  cut-over  lands,  the  lands  lying  too  high  for  lumbering,  and  the  mountain  tops. 
A  careful  study  of  the  situation  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  most  of  the  lands  of 
these  classes  can  be  bought  at  an  average  price  of  $6  per  acre. 


SOUTHERN    APPALACHIAN    MOUNTAINS. 


In  the  Southern  Appalachians  the  timber  lands  are  owned  by  large  companies  to  a 
less  extent  than  in  the  White  Mountains,  but  even  here  as  much  as  50  per  cent  of 
many  localities  is  under  such  ownership.  ^11 

Timber-land  owners  in  the  Southern  Appalachians  are  generally  inclined  to  sell 
their  lands  to  the  Government  at  a  reasonable  price,  regardless  of  whether  the  lands 
contain  virgin  timber  or  are  cut  over.  Furthermore  many  of  them  are  favorable  to 
the  transfer  of  their  lands,  themselves  retaining  the  right  to  cut  and  remove  certain 
kinds  of  timber  above  specified  sizes. 

In  considering  the  practicability  of  the  Government's  purchasing  land  for  national 
forests  in  the  Southern  Appalachians  conference  has  been  freely  had  with  timber- 
land  owners,  lumbermen,  real  estate  dealers,  and  title  examiners.  Moreover,  atten- 
tion has  been  paid  to  the  sales  which  have  been  made  during  the  past  two  years  and 
the  prices  which  have  been  paid. 

The  price  of  virgin  hard-wood  land  varies  from  $5  to  $12  per  acre,  depending  on 
accessibility  and  kind  and  quality  of  timber.  Cut-over  lands  are  worth  from  $2  to  $5 
per  acre,  their  value  likewise  depending  upon  their  location  and  the  condition  of  the 
timber  growth  upon  them. 

From  this  report,  or  any  other  information  available,  who  can  figure 
out  the  probable  outlay  of  money?  No  data  is  furnished  as  to  the 
number  of  acres  of  the  $75  and  $125  per  acre  land.  There  is  no  data  as 
to  the  number  of  plants.  All  that  is  known  is  that  some  of  these  lands 
are  valued  at  from  $75  to  $125  per  acre,  and  that  there  are  plants  there 
representing  an  investment  of  several  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and 
that  the  value  of  the  plants  must  enter  into  the  consideration.  No 
data  is  given  as  to  the  number  of  acres  of  hard  wood,  except  that  there 
is  a  large  area.  No  data  is  given  as  to  the  number  of  acres  of  cut-over 
land,  valued  at  from  $1  to  $8  per  acre,  except  that  it  is  believed  that 
most  of  the  land  of  these  classes  can  be  bought  at  an  average  price  of 
$6  per  acre. 

Suppose  the  average  price  of  all  the  75,000,000  acres  to  be  purchased 
in  this  region  is  $20  per  acre,  it  would  mean  an  investment  of  one  and 
one-half  billion  dollars,  an  amount  more  than  six  times  the  cost  of  the 
building  of  the  Panama  Canal,  or  nearly  twice  the  amount  of  our 
present  interest-bearing  debt,  or  four  times  the  value  of  the  total 
annual  products  of  the  Iowa  farms. 

The  Secretary  reports  that  these  timber  lands  are  in  the  main  held 
by  a  few  large  companies.  This  means  large  prices.  Besides,  the 
Government  generally  pays  more  for  what  it  buys  and  will  have  to 
pay  larger  prices  than  would  have  to  be  paid  by  individuals  in  pur- 
chasing the  same  lands. 

The  Secretary  reports  that  the  principal  owners  of  lands  are  unwill- 
ing to  dispose  of  their  virgin  timber  lands,  except  at  a  very  high 
price;  that  the  cut-over  lands,  lands  lying  too  high  for  lumbering, 
and  the  mountain  tops,  or,  in  other  words,  that  only  such  lands  as  are 
not  needed  or  desired  for  this  or  any  other  purpose  are  offered  for 
sale. 

Considering  the  Secretary's  repor-t  and  the  fact  that  the  purchase  of 
the  75,000,000  acres,  involving  an  expenditure  of  probably  over  a 
billion  dollars,  is  probably  only  a  small  part  of  the  land  necessary  to 
be  acquired,  as  undoubtedly  enterprising  and  patriotic  real  estate 
owners  in  other  parts  of  the  country  would  be  willing  to  unload  their 


140        FOREST   LANDS   FOE   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

lands  onto  the  Government,  especially  when  the  price  is  to  be  very 
high,  and  will  insist  that  there  he  an  equitable  distribution  of  these 
billions  of  dollars;  and  considering  also  the  enormity  of  the  whole 
proposition,  is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom,  common  sense,  and  sound 
business  judgment  first  to  obtain  detailed,  accurate,  and  reliable  infor- 
mation in  order  that  a  comprehensive,  well-devised,  and  practical 
policy  may  be  worked  out  and  followed? 

Considering  also  that  the  proposed  bill  is  an  entering  wedge  to  such 
a  gigantic  proposition,  I  feel  constrained  to  dissent  from  the  views  of 
the  majority,  and  believe  that  for  the  present  that  H.  R.  21986,  passed 
the  first  session  of  this  Congress,  is  the  proper  legislation.  Its  pro- 
visions are  clearly  set  forth  in  Report  No.  1700,  a  copy  of  which  is 
appended. 

GILBERT  N.  HAUGEN. 


[House  Report  No.  1700,  Sixtieth  Congress,  first  session.] 

The  Committee  on  Agriculture,  to  which  was  referred  House  bill  21986,  has  had 
the  same  under  consideration  and  reports  as  follows: 

At  the  beginning  of  the  present  session  a  number  of  bills  were  introduced  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Agriculture  having  for  their  general  purpose  the  pur- 
chase of  certain  tracts  of  land  in  the  White  Mountains  and  in  the  Southern  Appala- 
chain  Mountains  with  a  view  to  preserving  the  forests  on  said  lands  and  conserving 
the  flow  in  the  rivers  having  their  sources  therein.  The  committee  considered  its 
most  pressing  duty  to  be,  first,  to  prepare  the  appropriation  bill  for  the  Department 
of  Agriculture.  Before  the  consideration  of  this  bill  had  been  completed  a  resolu- 
tion was  introduced  by  Representative  Bartlett,  of  Georgia,  providing  that  the  bills 
above  mentioned,  commonly  known  as  the  White  Mountain  and  Appalachain  Park 
forest-reserve-bills,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  with  the  request 
that  that  committee  render  an  opinion  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposed 
measures.  This  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  House,  and  the  bills  were  referred 
accordingly.  Pending  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  the  Committee 
on  Agriculture  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  could  not  properly  give  consideration  to 
these  measures. 

On  April  20,  1908,  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  rendered  an  opinion  to  the 
effect  that  the  United  States  would  have  no  right  to  purchase  lands  for  the  purpose 
of  creating  a  forest  reserve,  but  that  Congress  might  appropriate  for  the  purchase  of 
lands  having  a  direct  and  substantial  connection  with  the  navigability  of  navigable 
rivers.  As  a  result  of  this  decision,  Representatives  who  had  introduced  the  bills 
which  had  been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  modified  and  reintro- 
duced  them,  and  they  were  again  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Agriculture,  which 
took  up  the  consideration  of  them  at  the  earliest  possible  date.  After  hearing  testi- 
mony and  considering  the  bills  for  several  days  it  became  evident  that  the  commit- 
tee, with  the  information  then  before  it,  was  unwilling  to  favorably  recommend  any 
measure  committing  the  United  States  to  the  policy  of  purchasing  forest  lauds.  The 
whole  matter  was  therefore  referred  to  a  subcommittee,  with  instructions  to  recom- 
mend to  the  full  committee  such  action  as  it  was  deemed  proper  to  take.  As  a  result 
of  the  deliberations  of  this  subcommittee,  the  bill,  H.  R.  21986,  was  reported  to  the 
full  committee,  and  by  its  action  is  herewith  reported  to  the  House. 

It  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  forests  in  the  White  Mountains  and 
in  the  southern  Appalachian  Mountains  are  being  rapidly  destroyed,  and  the  desira- 
bility of  preserving  what  remains  of  them,  or  at  least  of  introducing  methods  of 
lumbering  which  will  prevent  the  destruction  of  immature  timber  and  will  protect 
the  forests  from  fire,  is  universally  conceded,  not  only  for  the  perpetuation  of  the 
timber  supply,  but  also  for  the  conservation  of  the  flow  of  water  in  the  streams 
having  their  source  within  these  forests.  The  problem  as  to  how  this  desired  end 
should  be  reached  has  been  widely  discussed  and  has  awakened  profound  interest 
throughout  the  entire  country.  As  a  result  of  this  discussion  four  distinct  methods 
have  been  suggested. 

First.  It  has  been  held  by  many  that  the  problem  was  one  belonging  exclusively 
to  the  States  concerned.  Those  holding  this  view  have  argued  that  the  Federal 
Government  has  no  constitutional  authority  to  purchase  lands  for  the  purpose  of 
conserving  the  forests  upon  them,  even  though  such  preservation  may  conserve  the 


FOKEST   LANDS   FOR    THE    PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS.        141 

supply  of  water  in  navigable  streams.  They  hold  that  the  matter  is  one  over  which 
the  States  have  exclusive  jurisdiction,  and  that  if  the  right  exists  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  meeting  it. 

Second.  Another  view  is  that  while  it  is  neither  the  right  nor  the  duty  of  the  Fed- 
eral Government  to  purchase  the  forests  it  may  properly  cooperate  with  the  States 
or  with  private  owners  in  their  preservation  by* furnishing  expert  advice  and  assist- 
ance in  their  proper  utilization  and  administration. 

Third.  Still  another  view  is  that  when  it  is  shown  that  the  forests  of  a  given  water- 
shed have  a  direct  and  substantial  connection  with  the  navigability  of  the  navigable 
rivers  flowing  from  that  watershed  the  Federal  Government  has  the  right  to  exercise 
jurisdiction  over  the  forests  therein,  although  they  remain  in  private  ownership,  and 
prescribe  the  method  which  shall  be  followed  iri  utilizing  the  forests  within  such 
watershed. 

Fourth.  The  last,  and  doubtless  the  most  generally  advocated  plan,  proposes  that 
the  Federal  Government  shall  buy  all  the  land  that  may  be  necessary  to  protect  the 
watersheds  of  navigable  rivers  and  exercise  over  the  forests  growing  upon  them  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  absolute  ownership. 

The  bill  now  before  the  House  was  drawn  with  a  view  to  meeting,  in  a  measure  at 
least,  each  of  these  four  proposed  plans.  The  first  section  proposes  to  give  the  con- 
sent of  Congress  to  each  of  the  several  States  of  the  Union  which  may  wish  to  dp  so 
to  enter  into  such  agreement  or  compact,  not  in  conflict  with  any  law  of  the  United 
States,  as  it  may  deem  desirable  or  necessary,  with  any  other  State  or  States  for  the 
purpose  of  conserving  the  forests  and  the  water  supply  of  the  States  entering  into 
such  agreement  or  compact.  It  has  been  often  urged,  by  those  \yho  insist  that  the 
Federal  Government  should  purchase  the  forests  under  consideration,  that  the 
problem  is  interstate,  and  in  view  of  the  constitutional  inhibition  against  a  State 
entering  into  any  agreement  or  compact  with  another  the  proper  treatment  of  the 

Eroblem  is  made  impossible  to  the  States  alone.  If  section  1  of  this  bill  becomes  a 
iw  this  obstacle  to  cooperation  between  and  among  the  States  will  be  removed. 

Section  2  of  the  bill  appropriates  the  sum  of  $100,000  to  enable  the  Secretary  of 
Agriculture  to  cooperate  with  any  State  or  group  of  States,  when  requested  to  do  so, 
by  supplying  expert  advice  on  forest  preservation,  utilization,  and  administration, 
and  upon  reforestation  of  denuded  areas.  It  also  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  Agri- 
culture to  enter  into  agreement  with  the  owners  of  any  private  forest  lands  situated 
upon  the  watershed  of  a  navigable  river,  to  administer  and  protect  such  forest  land 
upon  such  terms  as  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  may  prescribe.  It  is  believed  that 
under  the  authority  given  in  this  section  many  thousands  of  acres  of  forest  lands  will 
be  brought  as  effectually  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  scientific  forestry  as  if  these  lands  were  actually  owned  by  the  Government. 

Section  3  of  the  bill  provides  for  the  appointment  of  a  commission  to  be  composed 
of  five  Members  of  the  Senate,  to  be  appointed  by  the  presiding  officer  thereof,  and 
five  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Speaker. 

Section  4  makes  it  the  duty  of  this  commission  to  investigate  all  questions  tending 
to  show  the  direct  and  substantial  connection,  if  any,  between  the  preservation  of 
the  forests  within  the  watersheds  of  the  navigable  rivers  having  their  sources  in  the 
White  Mountains  and  Southern  Appalachian  Mountains,  and  the  navigability  of  said 
rivers.  And  in  case  the  commission  shall  determine  that  such  direct  and  substantial 
connection  exists,  it  shall  then  be  its  duty  to  ascertain  to  what  extent,  if  at  all,  it 
may  be  necessary  for  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  acquire  land  within 
the*  watersheds  referred  to,  the  number  of  acres  of  such  land,  and  the  probable  cost, 
or  whether  it  may  be  desirable,  if  within  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  exercise, 
without  purchase,  such  supervision  over  such  watersheds  as  may  be  necessary  to 
conserve  the  navigability  of  the  rivers  proceeding  therefrom. 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  section  all  the  questions  arising  out  of  the  proposal 
that  the  Federal  Government  purchase  the  forests  or  that  it  exercise  jurisdiction 
over  them  without  purchase,  may  be  carefully  studied  and  fully  considered.  It  is 
true  that  by  an  act  of  the  last  Congress  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  was  authorized 
to  report  and  did  report  upon  the  watersheds  of  the  Southern  Appalachian  and 
White  mountains,  the  purpose  of  the  report  being  to  present  to  Congress  "the  area 
and  natural  conditions  of  said  watersheds,  the  price  at  which  the  same  can  be  pur- 
chased by  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  advisability  of  the  Government  pur- 
chasing and  setting  aside  the  same  as  national  forest  reserves  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
serving and  regulating  the  water  supply  and  the  flow  of  said  streams  in  the  interest 
of  agriculture,  water  power,  and  navigation." 

Without  intending  any  reflection  upon  those  who  prepared  this  report,  it  may  be 
fairly  said  that  it  does  not  present  such  detailed  and  accurate  information  as  any 
careful  business  man  would  insist  upon  having  before  entering  upon  a  policy  which 


142        FOREST  LANDS   FOE   THE   PROTECTION    OF    WATERSHEDS. 

was  to  involve  the  expenditure  of  many  millions  of  dollars.  It  does  not  indicate  the 
extent  of  the  navigable  portions  of  the  rivers  whose  navigability  it  is  desired  to  pro- 
tect nor  the  value  of  the  forests  upon  them.  It  presents  no  data  showing  to  what 
extent,  if  at  all,  the  volume  or  the  steadiness  of  stream  flow  has  been  influenced  by 
the  destruction  of  the  forests.  It  shows  in  only  the  most  general  way  the  location, 
area,  and  probable  cost  of  the  lands  it  is  proposed  to  purchase. 

While  it  recommends  (p.  37)  that  the-Government  acquire  an  area  of  600,000  acres 
in  the  White  Mountains  and  5,000,000  acres  in  the  southern  Appalachian  Mountains, 
it  states  also  (p.  32)  that  an  area  of  75,000,000  acres  will  have  to  be  given  protection 
"before  the  watersheds  and  important  streams  are  adequately  safeguarded,"  suggest- 
ing the  thought  that  while  less  than  7,000,000  acres  are  to  be  purchased  at  once, 
75,000,000  acres  must  ultimately  be  acquired  if  the  watersheds  of  the  important 
streams  are  to  be  "adequately  safeguarded."  Your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that 
if  a  commission  of  ten  members  of  the  legislative  body,  responsible  to  their  constit- 
uents and  to  the  country  for  whatever  report  they  inav  make,  is  directed  to  investigate 
the  subject,  the  information  presented  in  its  report  will  be  sufficiently  comprehensive 
and  exact  to  enable  Congress  to  intelligently  legislate  upon  the  subject.  The  commis- 
sion is  given  authority  to  employ  experts  and  such  clerical  assistants  as  may  be 
needed,  and  is  required  to  report  to  the  President  not  later  than  January  1,  1909. 

Believing  that  this  bill,  by  opening  the  way  for  the  States  to  cooperate  with  one 
another,  puts  it  within  their  power  to  contribute  much  to  the  solution  of  this  impor- 
tant problem;  that  the  provision  it  makes  for  cooperation  between  the  United  States, 
the  States,  and  private  owners  of  forest  lands  must  contribute  greatly  to  the  rapid 
extension  of  scientific  forestry;  and  that  by  means  of  the  commission  for  which  it 
provides  the  most  careful  study  of  the  whole  problem  with  a  view  to  future  legisla- 
tion is  made  possible,  and  that  for  these  reasons  the  proposed  legislation  will  be  of 
great  public  advantage,  your  committee  respectfully  reports  the  bill  back  to  the  House 
with  the  recommendation  that  it  do  pass. 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Ayers,  Philip  W.,  esq.,  state  forester  of  New  Hampshire 31 

Butler,  A.  W.,  esq.,  of  Rockland,  Me.,  representing  GovernorCobb  of  Maine.  57 

Chamberlain,  Hon.  George  E.,  governor  of  Oregon 15 

Chittenden,  H.  M.,  Lieut.  Col.  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  U.  S.  Army 63, 112 

Currier,  Hon.  Frank  D. ,  a  Representative  from  New  Hampshire 36 

Gay,  Dr.  George  L.,  president  of  the  American  Medical  Association 58 

Goodrich,  C.  C.,  esq.,  general  manager  of  the  N.  Y.,  N.  H.  &  Hartford  Gen- 
eral Transportation  Company 53 

Guild,  Hon.  Curtis,  jr.,  governor  of  Massachusetts 4, 22 

Hale,  Rev.  Edward  Everett,  Chaplain  of  U.  S.  Senate 11 

Harvey,  W.  S.,  esq.,  representing  the  National  Board  of  Trade 43 

House  Report  on  S.  4825 119 

Lee,  W.  S.,  esq.,  of  Charlotte,  N.  C.,  hydraulic  engineer 50 

McFarland,  J.  Horace,  esq.,  president  of  American  Civic  Association 56 

Pardee,  Hon.  George  C.,  ex-governor  of  California . . . .  32 

Ruge,  John  G.,  esq.,  vice-president  of  Southern  Commercial  Congress 11 

S.  4825  as  amended  by  House  Committee  on  Agriculture 60 

Scott,  Hon.  Chas.  F. ,  chairman  of  Committee  on  Agriculture 3 

Stephens,  Hon.  John  H. ,  a  Representative  from  Texas 13 

Swain,  Prof.  G.  F.,  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology 45, 103 

Tompkins,  D.  A.,  esq.,  president  of  the  Southern  Appalachian  Association 51 

Van  Hise,  Dr.  C.  R.,  president  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin 15, 24 

Woodbury,  C.  J.  H.,  esq.,  secretary  of  the  National  Association  of  Cotton 

Manufacturers 57 

143 
U 


UNIVT  ••'  CALIFORNIA 

Lus  /^.s 
LIBRARY 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


'  '  1977 


Form  L-9-15r»-7,'31 


SD 

425  U.S.  Coni 
U582h  House .   Com- 

mlttee^ofT 
agriculture   - 
learings 


